The submission I would have made if they had a sense of humour

Submission on the clean energy bill

On behalf of all rational people in Australia, I object to the “Clean Energy Bill” because it is rank national insanity.

Namely: It’s too large compared to the rest of the world; it’s guaranteed by laws of science to make us poorer; it’s based on a religious dissertation put out by an unaudited foreign committee — and won’t make a jot of difference to the environment (except to encourage bird-blending whale-killing wind-farms and distract us from real environmental problems).

It’s too big

Australians will pay $391 each in the first year — compared $1.50 each for citizens of the EU, and that’s the cumulative total spread over the lastfive years. Really. And despite that pathetically small per capita charge, 900 scientific peer reviewed papers and 31,500 scientists agree that even the people of the EU have paid too much.

It’s guaranteed to make us poorer

Please explain to us again how we will get richer by using energy sources that are two to ten times more expensive? Australia gets 94% of its national energy from fossil fuels. Our top grossing export is coal. As a nation we will make less and do less overall. We know that lower productivity is inevitable: It’s practically a law of science. There is nothing on the planet or in the universe that achieves more work with less energy.

“In physics, work is the amount of energy transferred to a body by a force…”

There’s the caveat that having more energy doesn’t guarantee that the work done is useful: stupidity, vandals, and arsonists get more done with more energy too. But there it is. If you assume the nation called Australia produces things that humanity wants, we will do less of that with the Clean Energy Bill. It’s not theoretical. It’s as guaranteed as gravity.

If solar was more efficient, we wouldn’t need a Clean Energy Bill, everyone would just use solar.

If we want solar to be more efficient, the answer is to research it, not to pay for inefficient panels made by Chinese manufacturers and hope that someone else does the research (and then if they do, pay them the profits for the research we should have done ourselves). This way, we are paying for the research ten times over, through the creation of a fake market, but we won’t own the results.

The nation can never be compensated

The guaranteed loss of productivity and jobs and lifestyle can’t be “compensated” on a national scale. There are no measurable benefits from the policy succeeding. It’s not like we can keep extra farmland in production if we stop the seas from rising a measly 2mm. Nor will we save people from heat deaths through a national sacrifice that keeps us 0.00 degrees cooler.

The impact will be $1,600 per year for a family of four. People claim there is compensation, but for the nation as a whole there is no productivity gain therefore, the cost of $1,600 per family must be paid for by someone somewhere. The government can’t make energy from thin air. Your house will not be warmed by compensation.

If the government shuffles money to some families, it is at the expense of others. If the people who pay are the effective ones, the ones who make goods and employ people, they’ll have less power and influence to direct our economy. There is no escaping from the reality that if the nation emits less CO2 we will be poorer — less able to afford health care, environmental programs, or aid to foreigners. That reality can only change when there is an alternative. Why not focus on developing the alternative without crippling the economy?

If we want to help the environment, we need to stop bollocksing up the science

I’d be all for it if someone could make a reasonable case for the benefits.

For starters, they might find one single peer reviewed paper reporting empirical evidence that our emissions of CO2 would lead to major warming, or that the minor warming it may cause was anything other than beneficial.

This issue is too important not to take decisive action — our democracy, economy, and environment depend on it.

Instead of rushing through major changes to our national economy we need to get the science right. We need to audit the scientific institutions and foreign reports. Then we need to raise the standard of public debate so the people can choose the best policy. It’s urgent and inescapable that we need a nothing less than a televised series of debates. The case for and against by the best on both sides, with graphs, photos, interviews and whatever it takes. The nation deserves nothing less. The tax will cost billions. You’d think we could afford to spend $50 million on the debates, and $50 million on the vote. If the evidence is overwhelming and the skeptics are deniers, it’ll be easy to settle this won’t it?

211 comments to The submission I would have made if they had a sense of humour

Your comment that “”If we want solar to be more efficient, the answer is to research it, not to pay for inefficient panels made by Chinese manufacturers “” is right on the money.

We cannot afford to waste Tax money on environmental tokenism, and that is where we stand at the moment.

Politicians want to generate the appearance of scientific progress but the inefficient small scale solar units on individual homes that soak up tax money via subsidies and give us no real technical advances.

The only real solution to making use of solar energy is to fund research with the eventual aim of having large scale power and storage facilities that overcome the inefficiencies of home based roof top units.

On another article, Adam Smith claimed that Australia had not had a recession in 20 years. An admirable accomplishment if true. However, this bill seeks to end that run. A shame really. leftist politicians just cannot leave a good thing alone.

Unless I’m blind to something , I see it as blatantly obvious that this government is all about bringing down the Australian economy .And as far as I see it , they are picking away at it quite successfully.
Hence I fail to understand why so many “knowledgeable” people are stating how shocked they are at what the government is doing .
It’s not rocket science. but I guess if you keep telling the people something , the theory is eventually they will believe it .
Bit like the modern version of the old missionaries who used to plod they way around the planet preaching to the unknowing how wicked and evil their ways were.
Usually as a guise for some band of power freaks somewhere trying to take control of something or someone.
And usually very detrimental to the unknowing.
Look how many societies, and cultures have been destroyed by these nutcases.
And now they are trying to do the same to Australia, and much of the world , if they can get their way.
As with some of the previous “missionaries” perhaps it’s time [snip]

[REPLY: This is more a case of inept management, rather than intent. If they were trying to destroy the country, I'd relax. Given their past record of achieving what they set out to do... JN]

If you repeatedly do the same thing and get the same result, you INTEND to get that result. Any protestation to the contrary is nothing but a lie or malicious evasion. There is a point when the results are so monstrous that an innocent mistake is IMPOSSIBLE! The world reached that point many times the last century and is doing it again.

DO NOT give them the sanction that they are innocently mistaken. That is simply NOT possible.

barryd – Maybe they’re just making Australia cheap enough for China to buy… The Gillard government’s policy pattern either implies that they hold the Chinese government as a model of democratic excellence; that they are trying to pave the way politically, socially and economically for a China buy-out (putting us in good stead with the world government they expect to materialise in the next few decades); or else their policies are simply, coincidentally, generally creating highly preferential climate for cashed-up, state-backed Chinese businesses.

The second one is, I realise, highly conspiratorial, and less of a serious suggestion than a layman’s curious musings… The only reason I put it forward is because there is an eerily strong pattern of central control to the ALP’s movements in government, and that China is a close-by major trading partner as well as a socialist state.

I totally agree with your post Jo. The thing that really amazes me is that the main stream media in all its facets does not take up the cry against government and does nothing to promote this scandal. On the contrary it promotes the government line and resists all attempts at putting the reality to its customers. There is a complicity with the media and government that borders on treason. Sometime in the future the people at the head of the media should be held to account for their actions. I see the same in Europe the USA and the UK.

“Australians will pay $391 each in the first year — compared $1.50 each for citizens of the EU, and that’s the cumulative total spread over the last five years. ”
That’s correct; here in Europe the CO2 emissions allowances were mostly given to the emitters for free and only this year the German government (and maybe others) started to auction off some of them.

But I’d like to add that we get milked by other green schemes and taxes; mostly the German Renewable Energy Act which increases the price of an already absurdly taxed kWh from 20 Eurocent to 23.5 Eurocent; given a personal consumption of about 2000 kWH/annum that’s 70.00 EUR / capita; BUT the total electricity consumption is 7000 kWh / capita due to industry and infrastructure so we end up with a cost of 213.50 EUR per capita and year in Germany. Most of this cost is hidden because companies will simply increase their prizes accordingly.

Slightly o/t but Cassandra Wilkinson in today’s Australian is having a go and needs to be challenged.

On the other side, the Liberals are also at risk of mission drift. Tony Abbott lacks a clear vision for the economy and is attacked internally for a failure to address workplace issues and indecision on middle-class welfare, but has boundless energy for the handful of votes on his Right among the No Carbon Tax crowd. Some may protest that the No Carbon Tax crowd are not a minority, but they were in 2009 when climate policy was part of the centrist consensus and Malcolm Turnbull assured people, “the Coalition supports, and supported when in government, an environmentally effective and economically responsible emissions trading scheme”. Back then Auspoll found 78 per cent of people surveyed were concerned about climate change and almost four in 10 felt Labor and Liberal were equally well placed to address it.

Cassandra, Abbott has already claimed the centre ground. That is the problem for Labor. Take a look at the polls. As for resisting a tax on carbon dioxide (aka plant fertiliser and essential element in the periodic table, without which we would all cease to exist) this is the new mainstream. What you point to in a few years back can be summed up as fashionable thinking based in a lack of understanding of a problematic and relatively new multidisciplinary field of science (climate). The general population is aware that taxing Co2 will do nada to stop a naturally variable climate, but will irresponsibly damage our economic well-being. Increasingly people are also becoming informed on just how unsettled the science really is, and on what shaky grounds this Govt is building country changing policy. Can I suggest you do some reading and you might want to start with the eminent Prof Lindzen’s succinct essay titled ‘Resisting Climate Hysteria’, easily searchable via Quadrant Online, and then get back to us on what will constitute a centrist position in the future?

Ok, so it is before 6am (only on my second coffee) and maybe some others here can do some better submissions?

I note you quote the CEF document for the “$391 each in the first year”

A couple of points on this.

1 The $391 is government numbers based on what rubbery figures – oh, of course, their own?

2 This figure is also based on a CO2 tax of $23 per ton. We ALL know this is the “thin edge of the wedge” and that this will rise dramatically. The greens are already saying they want the price to be in EXCESS of $100.

3 This tax is INSIDEOUS due to it’s compounding effect (unlike the GST) which means EVERY level of trade will pass on their increased costs to the next level until the end consumer gets hit with the addition of ALL the increases.

4 ANY compensation paid to SOME members of our community will disappear VERY quickly once all these increases start to bite.

5 There are NO guarantees within the legislation to prevent profiteering from the new tax – whatever the goverment may say they will not have the resources to monitor prices of everything (think Grocery Watch)

6 But the REAL issue here is not a measley little carbon tax – once it morphs into an ETS we will then see the real result of this treasonous legislation.

The FACT that under an ETS we WILL be sending $57,000,000,000 (THAT’S BILLIONS) overseas EACH & EVERY YEAR so we can use OUR resources is CRIMINAL and this is where the CO2 scam should be fought.

I can’t believe that there isn’t uproar throughout the ENTIRE country – $57 BILLION EVERY YEAR.

WHERE IS THE MSM – WHY IS THE AVERAGE AUSTRALIAN SO BLOODY COMPLACENT ????????????????
I am so bloody angry – perhaps because I feel so HOPELESS!

Jo,
You have nailed it again. No debate, no science, no common sense. Legal plunder = to take ones property to give to another via legislation. It is not just another tax. Understanding what the planners game is with carbon offsets is a whole new game the general public are not aware of. We must keep up the resistance while we can. Well done.

Even Tim Flannery knows that the “Carbon Pollution” tax will not have an effect on lowering atmospheric CO2 levels one iota!

Sir Richard Branson, multibillionaire and founder of the Virgin group of companies. Sir Richard has certainly jumped on board the Global Warming bandwagon in a big way. According to Branson during a brief discussion over breakfast with Al Gore, “my views on global warming were changed 180 degrees.” That Al guy sure must be persuasive! Branson has since pledged to donate three billion dollars (!!) to “fund the fight against climate change.” Branson has also launched his ‘Climate Challenge’ which offers a prize of $25 million to anyone who can remove carbon dioxide fro the atmosphere. The panel of judges for this challenge are Al Gore, James Lovelock, Sir Crispin Tickell, Tim Flannery and James Hansen.

“It will have to be a mix of the best solutions from all these areas that will win the battle to keep CO2 levels below those at which Gaia will strike back at some stage, and kill the problem – in this case us .” – Richard Branson interview

Business does not and never has paid the GST. It is merely a collector of that tax. In the case of businesses with a smaller turnover Howard generously allowed such businesses the use of those government monies (GST collected minus GST paid) for up to three months. ie until the next quarterly BAS statement.

Businesses, particularly manufacturers, will not be compensated for power cost increases under this carbon tax that is why it is a nonsense to suggest that Gillard’s carbon tax will be like “Howard’s” GST in its effect on business and consumers.

In the case of consumers the GST replaced other taxes.

Gillard’s tax not only puts pressure on business costs but also adds to the loss in viability of Aussie businesses in the context of highly efficient Asian competitors.

“You are comparing the period BC (before Climategate) to AC (after Climategate). Apparently, you didn’t bother to read the Climategate emails or have a computer programmer explain the Harry-read-me file to you. however, it’s not too late to do so now.

Problem with looking to Wilkie to bring down the Government is that he will see the CO2 tax through Parliament first. By then it is all too late and nigh impossible to unravel. The Greens will still control the Senate and you will need a DD election to remove that cancer.

Anything short of a member being immediately removed from Parliament (on the Government’s side) is not going to stop the legislation now … let’s face it, it is the only reason Joooolya is allowing the filth that is Thompson to sit on her side.

Sorry but it is all too late to stop the tide of unreason in Australia barring anything short of a minor miracle.

27 Sept: Australian: ACTU lets the cat out of the bag. It’s not about cutting emissions, it’s about cutting wages
SENATOR Simon Birmingham: Mr Fetter, do you accept, then, that the Treasury modelling is accurate when it predicts that national income, real income, per person will be below that expected without carbon pricing?
Joel Fetter, policy and industrial director, ACTU: Yes, the whole point of the scheme is to reduce our emissions, thereby reducing the GDP and the incomes to all the factors of production that would otherwise have taken place.
Birmingham: The whole point of the scheme is to reduce the national GDP?!
Fetter: Well, we’re clearly going to have to use more expensive sources of energy to achieve the same production, so . . .
Birmingham: And the union movement is comfortable with lower income per person in future?
Fetter: . . . Yes, but we have the higher GDP if we allowed child labour or there are many things we could do to increase our GDP but we don’t do them. They’re not good ideas.
Birmingham: But this is talking about real wages of your members.
Fetter: Well, you’re comparing a hypothetical scenario of “what would the world look like down the track if we didn’t have a climate change scheme”.
Birmingham: I’m talking about the modelling the government, that you so enthusiastically support, relies [on]….
Treasury response to questions from Henry Ergas, September 22:
THE modelling undertaken in the Strong Growth, Low Pollution report does not rely on an assumption that there is a perfectly harmonised global emissions trading scheme. It does, over time, assume that countries take on emissions reduction targets through some mechanism. It also assumes that, over time, countries allow individual firms or governments themselves to trade abatement with firms/governments in other countries through some mechanism…http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/actu-lets-the-cat-out-of-the-bag-its-not-about-cutting-emissions-its-about-cutting-wages/story-fn72xczz-1226148389741

Exactly so about the GST replacing wholesales sales tax (and others). In the case of the small business I was running at the time the wholesale sales tax worked out to roughly 10% of the final product price, so no change in pricing was warranted with the move to the GST.

The only “compensation” Australians are receiving for this new tax is a change in the income tax brackets, but this is virtually tax neutral around the median income meaning that we suffer another year of full bracket creep, costing at least hundreds of dollars each. And that is only in the first year of the tax… the CO2 tax impact grows year after year, but I am sure there is no talk of tweaking the tax bracket compensation to match.

These are the kinds of half truths (aka half lies of omission) the Government keeps spewing forth. It is very rare to find them saying anything which encompases the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I’ve had a gutful of it personally, and judging by the polls, so have most Australians, but yet they don’t act. This is what continues to mystify me … why are Australians so placid?

26 Sept: Washington Times: Jim McElhatton: Solyndra hired (Condoleeza) Rice consulting firm
Troubled solar firm sought help drumming up business in India
Fast running out of money just two years after winning a half-billion dollars in federal loan guarantees, solar panel maker Solyndra LLC this spring looked overseas to India in hopes of finding new business to turn the company around.
Solyndra, which only months earlier had hosted President Obama during a tour of its headquarters, hired the Rice Hadley Group, a consulting firm founded by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Formed by Ms. Rice and former National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley, the firm performed an analysis of the solar market in India for Solyndra, later helping the company reach out to potential business contacts in the country.
“We finished the assignment in May and the relationship ended,” said Anja Manuel, a partner at Rice Hadley and special assistant to the under secretary for political affairs in the Bush administration under Ms. Rice.
If Solyndra won any business in India, it wasn’t enough…
But Solyndra’s hiring of the Rice Hadley Group does show that even as its finances were growing increasingly dire, the company continued spending on well-connected consultants and lobbyists as it sought to convince politicians and potential customers alike that its prospects were bright.
Six weeks before Solyndra announced it was broke, the company hired the Glover Park Group, a Washington lobbying firm founded by former Clinton administration officials, to help arrange meetings between company officials and members of Congress…
The Times also reported Monday that another creditor listed in the bankruptcy case, the California Democratic Party, also didn’t know why it had appeared in the bankruptcy filings…
It was a quick collapse for a company that over the past two years had been hailed by President Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and others…http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/26/condoleezza-rice-firm-also-worked-solyndra/

Bulldust@25
The ony answer i can give based on my own experiences in the ALP heartland is that people are resigned to two things. That Gillard will ram the tax through and that Abbott will win the next election. To say there is a seething anger from many many ALP supporters is an understatement. They will never vote Liberal or Green but they will vote anti-tax independent. They have largely switched off listening to Labor and the debate. They just want a vote and its all over red rover. Their revenge will be served up cold.

again, it’s non-partisan, folks, and what we need to do is join forces to stop the rot:

27 Sept: Bishop Hill: Guilty Men and guilty Women
I’ve just been sent this video and transcript of Baroness Worthington speaking at an seminar called the CDKN Action Lab (H/T Barry Woods). In it she explains the roles she, David Cameron and David Milliband played in bringing the UK’s Climate Change Act into being. When the time comes to point the finger of blame this will be a good place to start…http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/27/guilty-men-and-guilty-women.html

For a start Rudd, Wong, Gillard , Swan, Combet, Gore etc etc have all told us that this is the “greatest moral challenge” facing us in our lives.

But then a number of these idiots live the most opulent and extravagant lifestyles that could be imagined, extensive overseas travel, ownership of expensive seaside mansions built right on the shoreline and some even indulge in private jet plane ownership as well.

But the mitigation fraud is easily explained by reference to two simple ratios. We export three times more coal than we use in Australia and the Gillard govt is trying to increase exports every year.

Next the EIA projections show that the developed world will only increase co2 emissions by 0.1% per annum for the next 25 years while the developing world will increase emissions by 2% per year over the same period.

That’s a ratio of 20 to 1, so every increase of 1 million tonnes emitted by the developed world will be dwarfed by a further 20 million tonnes emitted by the developing world for decades into the future.

Therefore the Gillard govt and their supporters are just stupid bi-polar hypocrites who can’t even understand simple primary school maths or simple ratios of 3 to 1 and 20 to 1.

But where is the MSM media and why aren’t they exposing this fraud to the Aussie electorate? Why don’t they expose this mitigation lie at every opportunity when we all know that there is zero we can do to reduce future co2 emissions?

Of course using lateral thinking we could just subtract a few percent of the coal export tonnage every year and have the same result as this stupid co2 tax.

I was horrified when I was reading through it again yesterday and saw I had left out a section reference on the 2nd page, plus one or two grammatical errors. Grrr. If only we’d all been told about the deadline sooner.

I’ve been looking through some of the other submissions that are beginning to show up on the Select Committee submissions site. Whilst it may not be as colourful as my own (toot toot), I reckon the best submission overall I have seen published so far has been from the innocuous-sounding Mr RV and Mrs PJ Barbero [PDF]. They covered the breadth of issues, whereas I knew I didn’t have enough time to cover every dimension to the depth I thought was needed.

Again I have to wonder when the submissions from David Evans and Bob Carter will be published there, if at all.
You can tell that not all submissions that are read and processed are being published because of the gap in document ID numbers on the PDFs. Up until Ian Read’s document the list item number matches the document ID, which is 050. Then the next document from GCA is number 052. What happened to 051, and why? But of course I should not harbour suspicious and cynical thoughts about our benevolent conscientious Big Brother. A more innocent explanation is that the document contained somebody’s private address or they don’t want their submission published.

And as reported widely yesterday (eg at ACM and later at Real Science) the in-person committee interview with Australia’s Chief Junk Scientist was just mortifying. Falsehoods, arguments from consensus, trojan numbers, the works.
But hey, let’s give Chubbsy the benefit of the doubt:

Prof. Chubb: No, Chair, I am here at your invitation, so we can hop straight into it.

CHAIR: Thank you very much. We do appreciate everyone taking up the invitation because it was rather late
notice.

I am I to understand even the Chief Scientist didn’t get enough notice to sufficiently prepare for committee testimony? On the most contested pseudo-scientific issue of the year? Sounds more like a fig leaf of plausible deniability for the professor.

With the number of mistakes, omissions, biased advice, lack of preparation, bad economic timing, unaudited models, narrow foresight, and overall dog’s breakfast that underlies the Clean Energy Future proposal, one is tempted to invoke Satan’s Law of security to explain it.

Sorry to disillusion you Rereke, but your hopes are leaning on a very weak reed. Wilkie hawked himself round various political parties (including DLP and Greens) for years trying to get into Parliament. He knows he only got in by a fluke* as a so-called independent this last election and is very unlikely to be re-elected next time. He will certainly not risk his remaining two years by possibly causing an election.

He is all bluff on this threat and if there are any hiccups will find a way to be “negotiated” out of his claimed hardline stance on pokies legislation, particularly, as has already been demonstrated, the megalomanic Gillard will do, say or agree to anything to hang on to power, no matter what the cost to the future of Australia.

*I’m sure I was not the only one who inadvertently helped elect Wilkie by giving him a higher preference than I otherwise would, wrongly assuming he had no chance in what had in the last few years become an electorate in Tasmania with a large unthinking core of rusted-on Labor voters.

We can file the following under “what we do will not make one jot of difference” category – BHP announced their plans to expand their iron ore operations in the Pilbara in a 100-page presentation file and associated 3-day dog-and-pony show for investors and analysts:

Now I don’t care what the Greenies blather on about, but there is no way, no how, you can turn Fe2O3 and Fe3O4 (that’s hematite and magnetite, respectively) into Fe (iron) and then steel without using a heck of a lot of coal, gas and or electricity. Chemists will tell you the energy it takes to break that Fe-O bond in each of the minerals, but I digress…

Point is, that with the growth in steel demand, CO2 emissions are going to rise … a lot. Whatever pathetic gesticulations we in Australia make to Gaia will be completely dwarfed by growth of industry (and therefore emissions) in the developing nations. I am still waiting to hear of a blast furnace or DRI process run by solarPV or a steel smelter running off wind turbines. But if one of our resident tree huggers wants to find me some evidence of such, I am all ears (or is that eyes?)

Now I don’t care what the Greenies blather on about, but there is no way, no how, you can turn Fe2O3 and Fe3O4 (that’s hematite and magnetite, respectively) into Fe (iron) and then steel without using a heck of a lot of coal, gas and or electricity…….
Point is, that with the growth in steel demand, CO2 emissions are going to rise … a lot. Whatever pathetic gesticulations we in Australia make to Gaia will be completely dwarfed by growth of industry (and therefore emissions) in the developing nations.

Look very carefully at this image of a forward estimate of coal consumption from 1990 to 2035.

Note that while the OECD and The Rest Of The World will be flat lining, look at Non OECD Asia, and the (literally) exponential rise in coal consumption.

What we do here in Australia, and in fact everywhere else in the World excepting Asia will be absolutely and utterly meaningless, and there’s no way I can add further emphasis to those two adjectives.

Lionell, I did not say they were “innocently mistaken”. Their plan is 1/ to rule, and all else is secondary — the destruction happens because this is a selfish ambition based on a vacuum of intellectual rigor, ethics and principle. They are guilty of ignoring the pleas of those they pretend to help, and of lacking the personal honesty to admit they were wrong on any topic. If they cared about the outcomes they would be interested in the data, the evidence, and they would hear the objections of the people they represent with interest instead of condescending disdain. I will not give them any false credence for the ability to plan ahead. They really do believe the world would be a better place if they were in charge. It’s a form of delusion. They deny the simple fact that there is no free lunch, and keep pretending they can magic a better world by decree. Their most grievous crime is not their B-Grade ability to think, or clumsy attempts to rule, it is their outrageous selfishness putting their own ambition above all else, a “means to an ends”.

And Yes, The $391 is government numbers based on their rubbery figures, is likely to be a gross underestimate. IF you have a better figure, do let me know. The $391 per head figure compared to $1.50 p/h (from the land of dying-economies) ought to scare the pants off any Australian anyway.

Our new Chief Scientist Ian Chubb thinks we need to get carbon (sic) emissions down (ABC News 27 Sept 11). So he’s about as competent as predecessor Sackett & Climate whacko Flannery. Says what [snip free speech for legal reasons], … M.Sc. D.Phil (Oxon) not withstanding. It’s a worry when the public can’t rely on that office to tell the truth.

While having a look through the clean energy bills I came across the mechanism for determining the emissions cap for the years from 2015 on.
From my understanding in the year 2015-16 the cap will be set by setting the cap 38 mtn below the 2000 emissions level and then lowering that cap by 12 mtn/year for ever till we get to 0 emissions.
So if the emissions for 2000 were 400 mtn the cap for 2015/16 will be 400 mtn -38 mtn = 362mtn then the cap will be reduced by 12 mtn from then on.
So by 2045 I figure we will only be allowed to emit 2 mtn.
362 mtn -(12 mtn X 30 years)360 = 2
Can someone point out where I am going wrong because I thought we were only going to reduce our emissions by 80% by 2050. That to my calculations would be 80 mtn.

I’m sorry Jo, but it’s this kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place, and will go on preventing us from getting out for as long as it prevails.

In case you didn’t notice, Australians have swapped Tweedle-Dee for Tweedle-Dum at state and federal elections several times now since Whitlam’s day. And yet as a nation we have remained purposefully and inexorably on one particular course. A course that is completely at odds with the wishes, hopes and aspirations of the vast majority of Australians.

The transformation of our public-funded education systems, our public services, our public-funded scientific bodies, our public-funded media, our unions, and to some degree even our medical services, into one vast, monolithic propaganda machine for a type of corporatist bureaucratic control most us find abhorrent, nonetheless continues unabated seemingly oblivious to any change in “government”.

If what has happened, and continues to happen were in any way due to various individual’s “ambition”, or “vacuum of intellectual rigor, ethics and principle”, as you claim, then over time we would see a variety of outcomes, as these things translate into different objectives for different people.

But we don’t. While all the while decrying anything that smacks of a hint of a “conspiracy”, we march, nonetheless, shoulder to shoulder, in lock-step, towards a pre-ordained destiny, to the beat of unseen drum, played by an unrecognised, but all powerful player.

Have you not noticed how all the “unintended consequences” of all the “ill-informed decisions” of all our politicians ALWAYS turn out to be advantageous to the same groups, all of which just happen to be working in concert towards the same shared goals?

Jo’s other half, David Evans, gets a shout out from Christopher Monkton in the current lead article at WUWT: “…one of the finest intuitive mathematicians I have met”. Coming from Monkton, who prides himself on his (considerable) mathematical ability, that is high praise indeed.

If what has happened, and continues to happen were in any way due to various individual’s “ambition”, or “vacuum of intellectual rigor, ethics and principle”, as you claim, then over time we would see a variety of outcomes, as these things translate into different objectives for different people.

There are very few ways to get public policy to produce the best possible outcome, and infinite ways to stuff it up. That fact that a bunch of self-serving people keep stuffing things up for the rest of us, proves nothing except selfish rulers are unlikely to accidentally produce good policy.

It seams to me that you’re leftist government is trying to transfer Australia to a more North Korea lookalike?
This UNEP/IPCC/WWF/Greanpeace/ radical enviros main political aim is too end the Western economic growth and consumption society. Or as Chavez put it In Copenhagen “get rid of capitalism”

What’s in it for the leftist government and what’s in it for the people of Australia?

By slowly getting rid of capitalism you will all become poorer economic.
But the leftist will get politically more richer?

Joanne, it seems to me like your logic on the compensation is flawed, because you seem to imply that the costs on the 500 businesses (or whatever number it was) would be so terribly bad, which I think is false. Why? Well, maybe there would be loss of productivity and jobs, but you can blame that on these greedy big businesses. They can hardly be considered poor, and although I’d say I’m against the idea of a carbon tax/ETS for various reasons, I think there should have been other policies implemented a long time ago. Then maybe, we wouldn’t have the various predicaments of today…

Let me provide one example. You know the governments mining tax? I think that general idea has potential, but their actual policy could be crap for all I know (I’m not aware of all the details on it). Regardless, businesses like mining are raking in BILLIONS of dollars for resources that can only be dug up once. If we in the past had placed more taxes on stuff like that OR the resources had been put under government control (it is a national asset after all), then we could have easily used that money for research into renewables which is an area you suggested to be more effective to target.

There is so many areas that could be looked into, and maybe we would have better renewable technology today that was Australian owned, rather than from the Chinese…

Without going into any precarious detail, could someone enlighten us as to what category of remark this was to have caused so much concern by moderators? I ask only so that the rest of us don’t make the same offhand mistake.

Okay, I’m also asking because now I’m concerned that the people whose submissions have NOT shown up on the APH web site are the people who will be taken in the middle of the night by the Green Police. >:-S And I may need to be more diplomatic in the future. Hello, ASIO, is this thing on? toast, toast, Toast.

I think that comment in #43 was only implying less than admirable motives on the basis of Chubb being paid by our government, yet being seen as speaking “independently”. Maybe I snipped too fast, but defamation jumps to mind, and today I’m very much aware of legal issues.

Some other people use rather aggressive cliches and I’m trying not to let them through either in the current climate.

Eddy Aruda left a post (502) on the Plimer thread, How to get expelled from school. The reason I bring it up is that the thread is now a few days old and many of you have probably moved on, Eddy’s post deserves to be read.

Before i respond let me be very clear I am absolutely 100% opposed to the idea of AGW and this govt and the carbon tax. But i think it is important to fight what it is, not what it isnt! In other words lets apply the same logic and rationale we apply to the science of CO2 that we do to the economy

The article by Jo is quite simply incorrect and is economic alarmism. The carbon tax is nothing more than than an attempt to shift our consumption (downwards) by putting a visible, actual and psychological cost on energy. In the course of history there is a very clear relationship between price of energy and quantity consumed, in fact it is extremely elastic given the emotions associated with energy. Anyone who beleives that the carbon tax will not cause people to look at their energy usage is kidding themselves. Of course it will. I run a very large company and the first thing we did was look at what it would cost us and it motivated us to look at ways to save energy. The carbon tax will cause CO2 reductions to reduce (for no benefit of course).

The carbon tax will be extremely benign on the whole. BUT it is not the point. It shouldnt be there in the first place and as a previous poster rightly pointed out an ETS is the great danger this country faces economically.

We will not win this argument by making things up. When the world stops warming (it has) the climate alarmists will look stupid, when the carbon tax causes no economic distress i dont want our side to look stupid either.

If Andrew Bolt can lose a court case like he did today and for the reasons stated in the judgement, we ALL have the right and responsiblity to bring charges against Anthony Albanese, Penny Wong, Greg Combet and Julia Gillard under the SAME LAW for villifying us for our beliefs. This should be done immediately.

The Clean Energy Bill joins another event that occurred in Australia today in confirming to a majority of Australians only that the current government, more than all else, specialises in Orwellian doublespeak – and would like to advance the power of the state over citizens even further. I think people are justified this evening in beginning to feel frightened about events in this country. However, I remain optimistic that the institions we have that have performed as they were designed to for more than a century will eventually deliver control over the nation’s affairs that many people may fear has been taken away from them.

28 Sept: UK Independent: Mark Lewis: World’s leading climate sceptic sees his funding melt away fast
Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and bête noire of climate change activists around the world, has been told that the incoming Danish government will cut off his £1m a year funding…
He was once compared to Adolf Hitler by the head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri. He also appears to have few friends in power after Helle Thorning-Schmidt became Denmark’s first woman Prime Minister after a slim victory for her centre-left coalition in this month’s election.
Ida Auken, who is widely tipped as the next Environment Minister in the new administration, told The Independent that Mr Lomborg could no longer expect government funding for his Copenhagen Consensus Centre.
“The reason he received funding in the first place was ideological,” said Ms Auken, environment spokesman for SF, the junior partner in the incoming coalition. “We believe that it is wrong to give funding to specific ideological researchers.”…
Mr Lomborg defended the centre’s research record. “We are disappointed if the new government does not wish to continue to support the centre which has published volumes of pioneering, world-class economic research and works closely with Nobel laureates and decision-makers to improve funding decisions in areas like development aid.”
The centre has received funding from private sources in the past, including the Carlsberg Group and the EU. However, the lion’s share of its income comes from the Danish state.
Mr Lomborg said he would not discuss possible motivations for the new government’s likely decision. But the centre’s staff have been steeling themselves for a funding crisis since it became clear the former, right-leaning government was doomed.
However, the self-styled “sceptical environmentalist” tone seems to have changed.
The centre’s latest book, Smart Solutions to Climate Change, has even received an unlikely endorsement from Mr Pachauri, who wrote: “I would recommend this book as much for the fact that Lomborg supports the view that we have ‘long moved on from any mainstream disagreements about the science of climate change’, as for the rich diversity of analysis it presents on a range of possible solutions.”
Mr Lomborg has denied in the past that the 2010 book represented a volte-face. He was, he says, never a climate-change denier. Rather, he was hostile to governments’ “bogus promises” to cut carbon emissions…
In his own words
“Climate change will not cause massive disruptions or huge death tolls. Actually, for the world in general, the direct impact of climate change in 2050 will mean fewer dead, and not by a small amount.”
“We have looked extensively at what we can do about global warming. It turns out that we can do fairly little at fairly high costs.”
“Many other issues are more important than global warming. We need to get our perspective back.”http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/worlds-leading-climate-sceptic-sees-his-funding-melt-away-fast-2362056.html

Points well made. But it has always been a military maxim to plan for the worst war, and then look for the easiest battle to win. And of course, the easiest battle to win is one you do not need to fight at all.

To put it another way, I would much rather plan for the worst, and then be disappointed.

My thoughts? It is the thin end of the wedge, which is why the next thread is so quiet.

Personally, I am pleased (not for Andrew, he has my full sympathy and support), but because “they” are obviously worried about loosing the propaganda war, and “they” have overreacted in spades. That fact will not be lost on the Bold fans, and a few other lurkers besides.

Raiden:
The “taxes” levied on companies who mine our mineral wealth are called “royalties.” They are technically not taxes because they represent compensation for the extraction and sale of exhaustible resources. As you say, once they are dug up and sold they are gone forever as far as the owners (people of the State) are concerned.

The fair level and technical implementatioon of royalties is a topic on which PhDs have been written, as well as large Government consultancies. As an economist I would agree that a resource rent tax is the most economically efficient (economic definition of the word) way to levy the royalty, but this is the decision of the owner of the minerals.

In Australia minerals belong to the Crown, and on State lands the Crown is represented by the corresponding State Government. It is therefore up to the State Governments to determine the appropriate royalties for mineral resources, and they take this task very seriously.

What the Feds have done is impose a new royalty-like tax on some mineral producers using the bogus (another technical economics term ) excuse that we aren’t receiving enough return for the minerals. This is simply not the Feds call to make, because, as I said before, the minerals belong to the people of the State’s and this interest is managed by the corresponding State Governments. In WA it is managed through the Department of Mines and Petroleum and the corresponding Minister (Moore), for example.

Now there are interesting side issues in what the Feds propose with the new mining tax. Royalties on Federal land and offshore waters are determined by the Federal Government. Offshore petroleum, for example, attracts the PRRT (Petroleum Resource Rent Tax). This is understood to be a royalty. The new mining tax will impose the PRRT on State land petroleum (i.e near shore and onshore) projects over and above State royalties. These projects are therefore attracting a double royalty. It beggars belief that the petroleum industry isn’t up in arms, but then most petroleum is produced offshore so I guess they don’t see this as being a major issue.

I could go on, but you get the gist that this is a fairly involved issue. I am sure the Feds mining tax will be challenged in the High Court by the mining industry. They may well make the case that it is discriminatory.

BTW it was easy to cherrypick the boom years and say the mining industry is making unreasonable profits… where was the Government when the mining industry was making low profits or losses? Mining is by it’s nature a highly pro-cyclical market. You make boom profits in good years and low profits or losses at other times. What the Government wants is to cream the high profits from mining and take none of the downside risk … a kind of “tails we win, heads you lose” approach. If the Feds want to share in the mining boom they should do it the same way every other Australian does, by buying mining stocks, not by putting Constitutionally dubious taxes in place. But once again, royalties are not for the Feds to determine except on Federal land.

“ALESSIO RASTANI, INDEPENDENT TRADER: For most traders it’s not about… we don’t really care that much how they are going to fix the economy, how they are going to fix the whole situation. Our job is to make money from it. And, personally I’ve been dreaming of this [inaudible] for three years. I have a confession, which is: I go to bed every night, I dream of another recession. What I would say to everybody is, “Get prepared”. This is not a time right now to… wishful thinking that the government will sort things out. The governments don’t rule the world. Goldman Sachs rules the world.”

GOLDMAN SACHS RULES THE WORLDI just can’t wait for Barnaby to ask Malcolm what he thinks of this & who he thinks will make the most from trading carbon commodities

If Andrew Bolt can lose a court case like he did today and for the reasons stated in the judgement, we ALL have the right and responsiblity to bring charges against Anthony Albanese, Penny Wong, Greg Combet and Julia Gillard under the SAME LAW for villifying us for our beliefs. This should be done immediately.

Would that be on the basis of religious vilification? I’m not really sure if there are laws that pertain to anything like ideological vilification?

I suspect its perfectly ok to say that you disagree with someone because they are wrong, misguided, misled, or a (insert non-racial, non-religious, generally derogatory of intelligence descriptor here). Its probably also ok to make an assertion that someone is misleading others on a particular matter if you genuinely believe that you have have reasonable grounds for that assertion. You’d probably have to couch it in terms that don’t actually accuse of malicious behavior (a few posters here should probably watch that). Also, you’d have to find something that hasn’t been said under Parliamentary privilege to be upset about.

Anyway, what have any of them said that can be described as vilifying? Yeah, the position they take does imply that they consider some of the more vocal adherents of the “Global Warming is Crap” camp are a few jumpers short of a flock, and acting against the National Interest, but what have they actually said that’s so bad and not par for the course in a robust debate ?

We already know the left are hypocrites. We already know they have no attachment to the rule of law or fealty to precedent. We already know they prefer dictators unbound by law or custom, as long as (they think) the dictator is of their mind. There is no need to keep proving these facts again and again.

No, the best way to fight this assault on free speech is to repeal the ridiculous laws that allowed it to happen.

The Institute of Public Affairs (an excellent free-market think tank of long standing) is running a campaign to do exactly this. I have just donated to their request for support and urge others to do the same.

I was only discussing a suggestion made up-thread. I don’t see anything on Overseaseinsider’ post @ 59 that is out of order. He’s obviously annoyed at comments made by politicians here, and you could construe his comment as suggesting he feels vilified by what they have said on the public record at some point. I’m curious as to how his beliefs have been formed.

Would that be on the basis of religious vilification?

That line is maybe a bit sarcastic, but i dont think there is anything in my post that should offend to any extent or bring down any legions of politically correct potential litigants down on this site.

Jo and everyone on this site that cares,
If Andrew Bolt can lose a court case like he did today and for the reasons stated in the judgement, we ALL have the right and responsiblity to bring charges against Anthony Albanese, Penny Wong, Greg Combet and Julia Gillard under the SAME LAW for villifying us for our beliefs. This should be done immediately.
What are your thoughts??

Duh, we could try.

But we would lose because the court would find that we are vile deniers of settled science and so calling us Nazi is simply a statement of fact. No hatred was inspired since we are already hated. In fact, the hate speech court might decide that we should all be tattooed so we can be easily identified later should it be necessary to round us up for re-education. This court is the slippery slope… the banal face of evil. People rise up, it is us who they have come for!

So no, no, no, no way we should ever pretend that this court is just or in any way a legitimate usurper of our Free Speech Rights. We should forever stand in total opposition to limits on freedom of expression, especially political expression. No, NO way we should use the same vile totalitarian mechanics of state oppression against even our most reviled political opposition. I would rather be shouted down by uncivil mobs a thousand times than turn the same fascist dogs of statist oppression against them as they would us.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That means protecting our enemy’s right to free speech as much as our own, because now this court is the enemy of all our liberties.

THE ONLY TYPE OF FREE SPEECH THAT MATTERS IS THAT WHICH SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT WISH OPPRESSED.

Controversial political speech is the right that most needs absolute protection.

Only the most historically illiterate would use the powers of state oppression to crush their political enemy’s right to free expression because once the government usurps control over who can say what, when and how, it’s game over. None of us will ever be safe again from those who control the levers of power.

If all anyone is allow to do is bleat niceties which conform to the political sensibility of unelected (appointed by who??) judges then we have allowed ourselves to become slaves to the state.

I don’t recall voting for government to be the boss of what I can or can not say!

Providing that I don’t shout fire in a crowded theatre or don’t directly incite violence or publish plans to build a nuclear weapon in the kitchen sink, the government should stick to burning down houses with Pink Bats or filling potholes or protecting our borders rather than sticking its incompetent nose into our libraries to lend a hand editing the free expression of our political critiques and aspirations or even our art.

Not long ago we tossed the nanny state out of our bedrooms. Now it’s time to tell the bastards to get the hell out of our studies as well! Because, you know they’ll be working up to licensing our right to comment online and blog next if they get away with this.

The only proper way to respond to state oppression of free speech is for us all to talk naughty all at the same time while mocking them as the kangaroo court they are.

This court deserves nothing but ridicule, derision and a constantly sustained protest until it is disbanded.

So much excitement about so little. Seems “vilification” doesn’t some into it at all.

In concluding the eight day proceedings, counsel for the plaintiffs conceded Bolt’s writings did not incite “racial vilification or racial hatred”, rather they “constituted highly personal, highly derogatory and highly offensive attacks” on the nine individuals.

Seems part of the case against him was that he made a number of errors of fact in his articles about the 9 plaintiffs as well. This has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech. Its all about crap journo’s writing poorly researched nastiness and actually getting held to account for it.

Bulldust, you do know that the original mining super profits tax actually tried to even out the tax on mining, taking more than royalties in good times, and less than royalties in bad times? It was a bloody good policy which was shot down by vested interests. Who can forget Australia’s richest woman screaming from the back of a ute? I have a mate who is a glazier. The other day, I asked him how business was. He said that when he works for mining companies its all roses – plenty of work, no expense spared. But when he quoted domestic jobs, it was “3 quotes, and then decide they can’t afford to do it now” – and that is in boom town Perth. But a tax to take some of the excess profits from mining and use them to help the struggling sections of the economy, that is a bad idea. So we instead have to take the heat out of mining by having interest rates higher than they would otherwise need to be…..

And as for the freedom of speech stuff, the judge explicitly stated that he did not want to stop freedom of speech. He did suggest that people who want to exercise freedom of speech on racially sensitive topics should avoid lying and deliberately trying to insult and provoke (I paraphrase, as I heard it on the radio, but that is what I think he said…).

He did suggest that people who want to exercise freedom of speech on racially sensitive topics should avoid lying and deliberately trying to insult and provoke (I paraphrase, as I heard it on the radio, but that is what I think he said…).

I have not been satisfied that the offensive conduct that I have found occurred, is exempted from unlawfulness by section 18D. The reasons for that conclusion have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language.

Finally, in dealing with the formulation of the orders to be made by the Court, I have observed that it is important that nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification, including by challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people. I have not found Mr Bolt and the Herald & Weekly Times to have contravened section 18C, simply because the newspaper articles dealt with subject matter of that kind. I have found a contravention of the Racial Discrimination Act because of the manner in which that subject matter was dealt with.

If it is such a good and noble and fair idea to impose a “super tax” on the mining companies in the (relatively few) years they make bumper profits, why haven’t we imposed a “super tax” on the banks, who seem to continue to make “super” profits regardless of what happens to the rest of the country?

Sorry, i know you didn’t direct the question to me, but i have a penchant for stating the ridiculously obvious.

Mining companies are Primary Producers making Serious Profits out of Finite Resources that will Run Out.

The idea is to maximize the return to the Citizens of Australia for the use of those Finite Resources without crippling the mining industry. Which the MRRT wont, even by a little bit, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth from various Self Interested Brazzillionaires.

Banking is a Service Industry. The Finite Resources argument doesn’t apply, and they can also move their operations offshore in a way that mining companies cant.

Not prepared to accept all the blame Craker but as stated, like many others, I did make some wrong assumptions. Didn’t think Labor would ever be so on the nose in this electorate that even if the Party had chosen the least talented, most inept candidate possible they wouldn’t still romp in no matter how the rest of Australia voted. Looked at in that light, it’s perhaps a small positive that Labor didn’t win the seat as Gillard with a majority of one over the LNP would have had the right to form a minority Government, even though it would have still needed the support of Independents to function.

majority of one over the LNP would have had the right to form a minority Government

Oh FFS! In what universe didn’t the ALP have the “right” to form a minority govt with the Indes?? Both the major parties had the numbers to legitimately try and negotiate their way into executive govt. Julia won. Abbott offered to sell everything except his arse and STILL lost. History.

Raiden:
The “taxes” levied on companies who mine our mineral wealth are called “royalties.” They are technically not taxes because they represent compensation for the extraction and sale of exhaustible resources. As you say, once they are dug up and sold they are gone forever as far as the owners (people of the State) are concerned.

Okay, fair enough.

The fair level and technical implementatioon of royalties is a topic on which PhDs have been written, as well as large Government consultancies. As an economist I would agree that a resource rent tax is the most economically efficient (economic definition of the word) way to levy the royalty, but this is the decision of the owner of the minerals.

Whilst I don’t know if the resource rent tax is the best way or the most efficient method, I’ll take your word for it and agree with the rest you wrote. Well, up until the bolded bit anyway. That is an area which I think could be considered a controversial and debatable topic.

In Australia minerals belong to the Crown, and on State lands the Crown is represented by the corresponding State Government. It is therefore up to the State Governments to determine the appropriate royalties for mineral resources, and they take this task very seriously.

Whilst it may be considered Crown/State Government property, I’d say that it could be argued that this kind of issue should involve the Federal Government more. I mean, we are all on the same team and should be working together, right?

In the end, it’s natural that all these guys you mention take this seriously. A big reason is because of all that delicious potential money to be made.

What the Feds have done is impose a new royalty-like tax on some mineral producers using the bogus (another technical economics term ) excuse that we aren’t receiving enough return for the minerals.

I consider myself as someone with no political leanings. Now, how is that statement bogus exactly? According to the Government, they are getting a pittance out of the billions being generated. From what I remember, the exact amount was one dollar for every seven. That to me sounds like a raw deal when you consider all the billions being made. All the miners are really doing is digging up something already there. It’s not like they’re creating it themselves.

In the end, my concern was that if the Government did ultimately get a better deal, would they spend the money wisely? I wonder…

This is simply not the Feds call to make

Again, I think this area could be quite debatable.

because, as I said before, the minerals belong to the people of the State’s and this interest is managed by the corresponding State Governments. In WA it is managed through the Department of Mines and Petroleum and the corresponding Minister (Moore), for example.

It may belong to the people of the State, but much of the profits certainly doesn’t seem to going that way. I live in WA. Colon Barnett is a failure for various reasons like Julia Gillard.

Now there are interesting side issues in what the Feds propose with the new mining tax. Royalties on Federal land and offshore waters are determined by the Federal Government. Offshore petroleum, for example, attracts the PRRT (Petroleum Resource Rent Tax). This is understood to be a royalty. The new mining tax will impose the PRRT on State land petroleum (i.e near shore and onshore) projects over and above State royalties. These projects are therefore attracting a double royalty. It beggars belief that the petroleum industry isn’t up in arms, but then most petroleum is produced offshore so I guess they don’t see this as being a major issue.

I don’t know much about the exact details of the Fovernments policy, so I’ll take your word for it on all that. Anyway, if most of the petroleum is produced offshore as you say, then all that other stuff you mentioned seems like a non-issue OR something that could be worked out.

I could go on, but you get the gist that this is a fairly involved issue.

I agree.

I am sure the Feds mining tax will be challenged in the High Court by the mining industry. They may well make the case that it is discriminatory.

The idea is to maximize the return to the Citizens of Australia for the use of those Finite Resources without crippling the mining industry.

That is EXACTLY why mining companies pay royalties on what they dig out of the ground. With a royalty the mining company is paying the “owner” (in this case the citizens of the state) for the “produce” – in much the same way as Woolies pays watermelon growers for their produce. It is irrelevant to the growers of watermelons that Woolies make a profit selling the watermelons. That is Woolies business.

However, by replacing royalties with a “super tax”, what was a simple contract of sale business agreement between the states and the mining companies, payable regardless of whether the companies make a profit or not, becomes an opportunity for the mining companies to go out of their way to avoid paying tax in the “good” times, and soaking the taxpayer with their losses in the “bad” times.

If the mining companies aren’t paying enough for their “produce” (royalties), a view I wholeheartedly agree with (at the moment – the situation is extremely elastic), then the state governments need to increase their royalties. Converting it to a “tax” simply means converting it to a “tax deduction” (a cost on the taxpayer) when the current boom ends.

Or are you advocating changing the rules yet again when the current Chinese boom ends – which it will. THAT would be good for attracting overseas investment, don’t you think?

All of which has nothing to do with our ongoing debate about Andrew Bolt’s motives.

BTW it was easy to cherrypick the boom years and say the mining industry is making unreasonable profits… where was the Government when the mining industry was making low profits or losses? Mining is by it’s nature a highly pro-cyclical market. You make boom profits in good years and low profits or losses at other times. What the Government wants is to cream the high profits from mining and take none of the downside risk … a kind of “tails we win, heads you lose” approach. If the Feds want to share in the mining boom they should do it the same way every other Australian does, by buying mining stocks, not by putting Constitutionally dubious taxes in place. But once again, royalties are not for the Feds to determine except on Federal land.

Like I’ve been saying, one thing that could be argued is perhaps if the Federal Government had been involved more or taken full control of all the mining in the past somehow, we might not be having the kinds of issues we are now.

That is EXACTLY why mining companies pay royalties on what they dig out of the ground. With a royalty the mining company is paying the “owner” (in this case the citizens of the state) for the “produce” – in much the same way as Woolies pays watermelon growers for their produce. It is irrelevant to the growers of watermelons that Woolies make a profit selling the watermelons. That is Woolies business

.

Whilst your response was to someone else, I figured I’d respond to this particular paragraph. Anyway, to use your analogy, it IS relevant if Woolies are ripping off the farmers…which they actually are by the way. If I could buy directly off the farmers, I would. Screw the rip off merchant wholesalers like Woolies and Coles.

The answer is that (based on previous experience) they are slow to anger. However once they are angry they stay angry. They also tend to save their displeasure for the ballot box (opinion polls do not see it). Witness, Keating, Kennett etc.

ALP take note. If you wish to ever govern again, do something about the rising anger, now!

The most effective thing the government is doing to destroy democracy is ensuring that after the next election their will be no substantial numbers in opposition.

Whilst it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual debate (typical of you lot):

If I could buy directly off the farmers, I would. Screw the rip off merchant wholesalers like Woolies and Coles.

So you are claiming that you live somewhere in OZ where you are several hour’s drive from a weekend “farmers market”.

Let’s face it – watermelon growers be damned – you shop at Woolies (or Coles) because it’s convenient to you.

Which, of course, has NOTHING much to do with the comparison of mining companies paying a “royalty” (independent of whether they make a profit or not) compared to them paying a “tax”, which they can offset against their losses and capital investments.

I’m no lawyer, but I think this judgment does open up some possibilities on the lines you suggest.
You may be interested in a recent email exchange with the ABC on the “climate change denier” slur used by so many against AGW sceptics. Note particularly the admission by the ABC Head that “the phrase has been used to deliberately link it with the notion of holocaust denial, with all of the pejorative connotations that includes.” Note also that he cannot bring himself to use
the correct term AGW, but persists in the falsehood that the hypothesis of AGW is “climate change”!

Having lost close relatives in World Wars I and II fighting for freedom from the type of restrtictive totalitarianism now appearing in Australia, if I were a few years younger and had the financial resources I would seriously consider taking them on in the courts.

Subject: Insulting Name-calling by ABC employees

Comments: I am totally fed-up with and heartily sick of the constant and continuing use by hosts of ABC programs, various ABC commentators and newsreaders, of the erroneous and insulting term “climate change deniers” applied to anyone who questions the unproven computer-model generated hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Tony Jones of “Lateline” is a particularly insulting repeat offender, but there are many others.

Many younger people would not realise that American fossil-fuel hating AGW guru James Hansen was first to introduce the Nazi slur against opponents by referring to the rail transport of coal as “Death Trains”.

The AGW lobby later escalated the Nazi theme by labelling those who question them as “Deniers”. The deliberate link between the two terms and what is known as the Holocaust is undeniable to anyone old enough to know the history.

Denier is particularly offensive to all sceptics of the AGW hypothesis as we neither deny climate change nor historical cyclical and/or chaotic continued global warming or cooling as dictated by natural variability and a multiple of forces.

We do question the hypothesis that a tiny human-induced increase in a trace gas vital to all Earth’s plant and animal life will cause runaway catastrophic global warming.

Unless the ABC discontinues this abhorrent practise, announces and enforces it as a matter of policy in line with their stated charter, it will be necessary for those slandered to seek legal redress against the Corporation and/or offending individual employees.

REPLY from ABC

Thanks for your message on this issue.

I appreciate the point you make, and essentially I agree with you. However, I am reluctant to say that under no circumstances should the phrase “climate change denier” be used. I think you are right that, to at least some extent, the phrase has been used to deliberately link it with the notion of holocaust denial, with all of the pejorative connotations that includes.

For that reason, our clear preference is to stick with the more neutral phrase “climate change sceptic”. From a quick search of our content, that seems to be the general rule.

However, there may well be circumstances (especially when others use the term and we are faithfully reporting that) when the phrase will occur in our news programs.

Raiden: like I’ve been saying, one thing that could be argued is perhaps if the Federal Government had been involved more or taken full control of all the mining in the past somehow, we might not be having the kinds of issues we are now.

No, we’d be a lot more like the Soviet Union.

The current government can’t build a tin-shed without spending 30% more than it needs too.

The current government can’t build a tin-shed without spending 30% more than it needs too.

Well, I was more referring to past governments when I wrote that. I do agree that the current government is very flawed though, but I think there are some ideas and policies around which have the potential to be good.

To add onto that, in what way do you mean ‘more like the Soviet Union’? Do you mean aspects of socialism or something? Because I think there are capitalist, socialist and many other philosophies that already comprise and make Australia what it is today.

It’s now clear to me that unless we make a stand now and figuratively bulldoze the Racial Discrimination Act into the sea as a statement, we will watch individual liberties disappear one by one in this country – with implications for all the other issues this blog is concerned with. The nanny state trolls who come here flying the flag for evidence-free science are collectivists, who fervently believe individual rights must be usurped for the common good. This is the main reason why they’re excited about climate alarmism: the common good demands you must a) sacrifice your liberty, b) transfer more of your wealth to the state in taxes and give the state more economic power over you. Collectivists or communitarians, to give them their other technical term, are people who, as a matter of definition, do not believe in individual rights, but in the removal of liberty re-expressed in modern Orwellian doublespeak: “human rights” – a system under which designated identity groups have priviledges that override the personal rights of the rest of the population under common law.If you, too, are frightened about where this is heading, you have excellent instincts.The ultimate irony, the ultimate obscenity is that Australia is such a laid-back, egalitarian place it couldn’t possibly give root to a version of the state fascism Germany endured in the 1930s (which led to a disastrous war), could it? Well what does it look like to you?

I can imagine only two scenarios that would require that expression: Those profits gained by illegal activities, and those profits gained by a monopoly market position achieved by other than a patent or copyright.

I had dinner last evening with somebody who understands more about constitutional law than I (which is not hard).

In discussing The Tax, they made the point that the Queen will not interfere in matters of policy. She might however, express an opinion to the Governor General on constitutional matters. The fact that the Gillard Government have expressly stated their intent to make it far too expensive for any future government to repeal, can be interpreted as a constitutional matter, since it is a basic tenet that one government can not bind the next, and that bad law must be capable of being unwound.

If the Queen is to be petitioned, it would need to be on this constitutional point, and without reference to the science, or the impacts, or anything else. Simple and to the point, and not giving any room for political manoeuvring.

Raiden I suggest you read Mining Law in Western Australia, 4th edition by Michael Hunt (unfortunate, I know) before attempting to debate me on mining royalties. Most of the relevant sections are available for free here:

You end up looking rather silly making qualitative statements about issues which are quite simply a matter of law, be it State, Commonwealth or Constitutional law.

Is it within the rights of the Feds to impose a post extraction mining “duty of excise”? Absolutely. Do the minerals on State land belong to the corresponding State? Absolutely. These things are beyond question, they are matters of law. They are not up for subjective debate.

Once minerals are legally extracted by the mining lease holder (in WA) the property transfers from the Crown (State) to the lease holder. Any any stage beyond this point the Commonwealth can levy any tax they wish on further production or sale. It is no longer property of the State Crown.

To say the minerals (not saying you did) belong to all Australians is demonstratably false in law. They belong to the people of the respective States. However, the Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC) redistributes GST income between the States taking into account things such as royalties. State royalties are therefore indirectly redistributed amongst the remaining States. It may surprise you to know that Victoria gets more this way from WA mining royalties than we do. Does that sound sane to anyone?

As for the appropriate royalty mechnism (ad valorem, specific rate, RRT, Brown tax – not that Brown), it is up to the States to decide (and Feds on their lands) for themselves. There are competing objectives in levying royalties, such as levying a fair amount (what is fair anyway?), not discouraging mining investment, complexity/cost of implementation, stability of the revenue stream etc These are not simple matters.

The latter is something the Feds completely ignore in their advocacy of the MRRT. The revenues shall be very uneven, but the expenditures tied to the legislation are not. You cannot pretend that every year will be a boom year for mining as Swan does. We in WA understand that all too well.

As for Barnett being a failure, the polls would seem to disagree. Most people probably struggle to remember that Ripper is the Leader of the opposition these days.

Barnett is the one who took the strong position of removing the concession on iron ore fines royalties, by stating he would increase them to 6.5% and 7.5% in line with the royalties on lump iron ore.

BTW your propensity to block-quote is reminiscent of someone who recently stopped posting here. Just saying.

Excessive profits are undefinable. There is no such term in economics. There is a term akin to what you are trying to say which is “economic rent” – hence the resource RENT tax.

Economic rent is the profit left over after business has achieved the required return to emply the factors (inputs) of production (labour, capital, entrepeneurship, energy).

The laws simply approximate this rate of return with the risk-free level of return (long term bond rate) plus an arbitrary amount. I say arbitrary because I am sure the Federal Treasury simply plucked a number out of the air when designing the RSPT because it was waaaay too low to represent the required return of mining investments.

In addition, greenfields developments are more risky than brownfields, just like new resource types (like laterite nickel in recent years) are more risky than older tech developments (sulphide nickel ores).

The single rate in the MRRT/RSPT fails to make any distinctions between the differing risk rates involved in mining projects. It is simply one-size-fits-all.

I see the squatter in the Lodge is turning fifty today. Judging by her roots she is not a true redhead and should not be associated with the ‘Ranga’ tribe. Neither should she be accorded the uniqueness or the mockery that is inherently the privilege of said tribe.

Myself, being a redhead, object to this fake being in any capacity, representative of my Ranga brothers and sisters. If the squatter persists then our tribe will have no other option but to institute a class action to ensure this person does not enjoy our unique discrimination!

Comments on a famous judgment given by Justice Merkel around that time are particularly interesting.

Compare the sort of intelligent discussions allowed and perhaps one might say, actually encouraged at that time, and the situation as it now stands.

Sadly, for the first time in my long life, I no longer feel free to speak my mind. but I do urge everyone to visit all links provided in that most interesting and informative program and make your own judgments on freedom of speech then and now.

Footnote and warning for this JN post: After taking in all facets of that 4-Corners program you may suffer a severe bout of nostalgia for those days when when the ABC had real credibility!

The ubiquitous labeling of skeptics as deniers with its implied comparison to holocaust denial is hurtful.

It’s an attempt to label anyone who doesn’t pay homage to CAGW Orthodoxy as an exile from polite society. It’s an attempt to create a scorned “other” beyond the pale of reason. The ABC could interview a skeptical scientist, but a Denialist?

Having a derisive moniker to direct hate towards makes it so much more acceptable for, say, Mike Carlton to write in the Sydney Morning Herald that Denialists should be tattooed for identification, rather than, say, Dr. Roy Spencer should be tattooed. Dr. Spencer is obviously a human being. All human beings deserves some modicum of compassion. But a DENIALIST! you can feel free to tattoo, refuse FOI requests from, disrespect, ignore, or much worse. All your crimes can be, well, if not justified, forgiven.

The full damage that the ubiquity of the Denialist label has inflicted upon the climate debate can be clearly seen in the unhinged viciousness of the attacks on Climate heretics not just by lone columnists and corrupt scientists but in Green multi-million dollar promotional campaigns worked out by a teams of professional film makers. How else can anyone explain the gratuitous hate and violence posing as good humour in this English promotion video? —

The producers and their team of writers and actors in their zealotry some how missed the point that the Denialists they were depicting as being blown up in order to save the planet were shown as English school children. As it turns out murdering school kids in order to slow climate change proved a less than successful campaign to win public support.

All through history when despotic elites have decided to scapegoat or commit genocide upon one group or another they have found it most useful to first dehumanise the image of the group they were about to put to the sword. After all, it so much easier to imagine murdering school children if you first delude yourself into believing they are something less than human with none of the natural rights that go with being a person.

So yes, the label denialist is harmful, but ultimately it is an open question who is more harmed by it.

The skeptics are alerted to the desperate means to which the Greens will stoop to achieve their dubious goals by the daily vilification they’re on the butt end of.

And the smug Greens delude themselves that the skeptics are less than human, rational or even intelligent, while they themselves are morally superior in every way. The skeptics knowing that every word they speak will be challenged must remain rigorous and moderate, while the Greens become sloppy and over-confident aware that the media and research culture is stack in their favour. Maybe this accounts for the almost weekly self-inflicted gaffes the Greens suffer. The public notices all this, thanks to the Internet, which has become an effective work around the media boycott of real climate news…

So do we really want to add authority to the legal concept of “hate speech” by embracing government coercion to address our persecution at the hands of those who would vilify us as denialists? Do we want to increase the power of government to intervene in the national conversation? Do we really want to help the Greens reign in their own vile language problem?

I think not. The Greens hurtful and self-righteous speech reveals them for who they really are. Priceless. So it’s hardly ironic that the biggest supporters of limiting free speech are the Greens.

I have tried to stop calling skeptics deniers, and call them “skeptics” instead. This is shorthand for “self proclaimed skeptics”.

Anyway Bulldust, no doubt you know a lot about royalties, but the super profit level was not chosen arbitrarily. There was, I remember, a good reason it was set at that rate. I can’t remember what it was, and as always, the period where the actual policy was debated was over in the blink of an eye, and then we got onto the fun bit of the “political debate”, and billionaires on the backs of utes.

So from this i would gather that he’s been busted for specifically being offensive to those people on the basis of their race. Considerably tones down the freedom of speech implications i think.

I would suggest catamon that you have this completely assbackward.
In fact the freedom of speech implications by this judgement is quite profound.

How does one decide what is ‘offensive’ ‘personal’ and ‘deragotory’ to some?

Reminds me of the recent case in (the formerly) Great Britain where an entertainer was singing the old song Kung Fu Fighting, when a couple of Chinese passers by heard this, WERE OFFENDED by the song lyrics and took court action. THEY WON.

In view of this court judgement, I can see many Australians spending lots of time in court defending themselves because some diddums has been offended.

Far far better for us all TO GROW UP, TO GROW A LITTLE THICK SKIN and get on with more important things in life, because NOBODY WHO WAS EVER OFFENDED BY ANYTHING OR ANYBODY, WOKE UP THE NEXT DAY WITH RABIES OR SCABIES.

What may be offensive to one, may be water off a ducks back to another. For us all to tramp in and out of courts because our feelings were hurt renders our society crippled and disfunctional.

It was precisely freedom of speech that was kneecapped by that court decision.

Kung Fu Fighting lyrics

Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting
Those kicks were fast as lightning
In fact, it was a little bit frightening
But they fought with expert timing

There where funky China men from funky Chinatown
They were chopping them up
They were chopping them down
It’s an ancient Chinese art
And everybody knew their part
From a faint into a slip
And a kickin’ from the hip
Everybody was Kung Fu fighting
Those kicks were fast as lightning
In fact it was a little bit frightning
But they fought with expert timing

There was funky Billie chin and little Sammy Chong
He said, here comes the big boss, let’s get it on
We took the bow and made a stand
Started swaying with the hand
The sudden motion made me skip
Now we’re into a brand new trip

Everybody was Kung Fu fighting
Those kicks were fast as lightning
In fact it was a little bit frightning
But they did it with expert timing

Glad you’ve given up on denying that calling skeptics Denialists is a form of vilification.

Now all you have to do is give up the straw men arguments that skeptics are skeptical of climate change and AGW.

The only people who doubt that the climate should change are the Greens and the only thing they’re skeptical about is whether or not all private property should be confiscated to fight climate change…

Skeptics are all for climate change, since change is part of the definition of climate and to even utter the words “Stop Climate Change” is an oxymoronic insult to good logic.

As for AGW. I doubt more than 1 in 10 skeptics think there has been NO Anthropogenic Global Warming. Why bother debating a variation that is smaller than the margin of error in the historic t-record? What the skeptics really doubt is that AGW will prove to be CATASTROPHIC.

Skeptics primarily doubt CAGW, not AGW.

After all, the Earth has warmed about 0.7c in the last 130 years or so. Some part of this warming must have been a natural rebound out of the Little Ice Age and some part might well be due to human GHG emissions. So the long-term record seems to show the AGW effect to be like maybe 0.2c to 0.4c in the last century?

Soooo, yeah, you can keep your AGW. I’m not going to argue against that dataset. Fine. AGW IS REAL! OK? Whoo hoo! You win. The debate is over.

Now let’s talk about re-ordering the multi-trillion dollar global economy because apocalyptically, doomsday warming is a threat to civilisation.

First, John. I would ask you present some evidence, any evidence at all that the Earth is presently warming at a catastrophic rate.

You got that John? Present some EVIDENCE that the Earth is warming catastrophically.

29 Sept: SMH: Ben Cubby: Heavy breathing by plants could alter climate models, 30-year study finds
PLANTS have been breathing a lot more quickly than we thought, according to a study that suggests some climate change models may have to be modified to account for faster rates of photosynthesis.
An analysis of 30years of atmospheric records has shown that the total amount of carbon dioxide that passes through plants may have been underestimated by about 25per cent.
The study, published today in the journal Nature, traced oxygen atoms in individual CO2 molecules, and from this the US, Dutch and Australian researchers could determine how often each one had passed through a plant.
It showed “gross primary production” – the amount of carbon inhaled by plants – should be revised upwards from about 120billion tonnes per year to 150 to 175billion tonnes, researchers from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in the US, said…http://www.smh.com.au/environment/heavy-breathing-by-plants-could-alter-climate-models-30year-study-finds-20110929-1kxnh.html

29 Sept: Australian: James Massola: CO2 study reinforces our policy: Coalition
The new study, published in the science journal Nature overnight, shows that soil and vegetation may absorb 25 to 45 per cent more carbon each year, or between 150 and 175 billion tonnes, compared to previous estimates of 120 billion tonnes…
The leader of the CSIRO Changing Atmosphere research group, Paul Fraser, told ABC radio the paper would help address uncertainties in carbon modelling and allow scientists to more accurately predict global temperature changes.
He cautioned that new research did not mean there was more leeway for allowing carbon emissions to rise, saying “it doesn’t mean they hold more carbon, they (plants) probably respire faster”.
“I’d love to be able to say it does mean that but we just don’t know that, that’s in the next few steps (of research),” he said.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-plan/co2-study-reinforces-our-policy-coalition/story-fn99tjf2-1226151330122

Unions/Greens etc must be thrilled to know BP/Chevron/Google/Morgan Stanlety and the like get those nice CAGW Green loans…

28 Sept: Fox: Elizabeth MacDonald: The Secret Gov’t Bank That’s Financing More Solyndras
This little-known government bank, the Federal Financing Bank [FFB], had a zero balance in 2008 for green energy projects, but now, with little Congressional oversight, it is giving out billions of dollars in loans to White House pet projects often at dirt-cheap interest rates below 1%…
Plus the bank is funding the insolvent U.S. Post Office; the White House’s expensive green car projects at Ford Motor, Nissan and Tesla Motors; a $485 million loan to an expensive solar project that’s lost $160 million over the last three years that’s backed by Google, BP and Chevron; plus the FFB is funding the teetering HOPE housing bailout program, which gives delinquent mortgage borrowers breaks on their loans…
What’s scary for taxpayers is this: The FFB can borrow unlimited amounts of taxpayer money from the Treasury for these kinds of political pet projects. Under the 1973 “FFB Act, the bank may, with the approval of the Secretary, borrow without limit from the Treasury,” says the bank’s audited statements from KPMG…
In the month of July alone, the FFB gave a $12.5 million loan to Abound Solar; 60% of Abound’s balance sheet will come from federal taxpayers, or $400 million in guaranteed federal loans.
FFB also gave a $117,330 loan to the struggling Kahuku Wind Power and more than $77 million to the Solar Partners companies, whose parent company is due $485 million in White House approved loans.
The Solar Partners companies are units of BrightSource Energy, which is building a massive solar-powered energy plant near the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino, California.
BrightSource lost $45 million in 2008, $44 million in 2009, and $72 million in 2010, even though it has rich backers that include Google, Chevron, Morgan Stanley and BP, among others, says FOX News analyst James Farrell…
And the government bank gave loans to car and car parts manufacturers to retrofit their plants to make green cars. The FFB lent Ford Motor $163 million for its green car programs. The FFB is now financing projects at Fisker Automotive, Nissan North America and Tesla Motors, with $528.6 million, $1.4 billion and $465 million in federal loans, respectively.
However, the FFB’s balance sheet is backed by U.S. taxpayers, “except for loans to the U.S. Postal Service,” says KPMG’s audited statements for the bank. Because you, U.S. taxpayers, are the cushion for the bank, unlike other banks, the FFB “does not maintain a reserve for loan losses,” says the KPMG… report…http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/09/28/government-bank-financing-more-solyndras/?test=latestnews

I was round-about asked how I came to my beliefs on the CAGW scam. Quite simple, I am a highly educated person with a Nuclear Engineering background, I can read and I know how to investigate and troubleshoot. Admittedly, I came to this debate as a devout believer in the scam. It made an elegant kind of sense. Then I read a book that peaked my curiosity. It was “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton. I know this is a work of fiction and take as such. However, the bibliography at the back and simple, logical explanations in the book got me thinking. “What if what I’ve told isn’t so??” So I got busy investigating. It is easy, you know!!! Actual, empirical evidence NEVER lies, and with a modicum of personal integrity I was able to admit that I had been wrong in believing the SCAM and changed my stance. The righteous anger I now feel about being lied to in such an outrageous way keeps me focused in my mission to enlighten as many people as possible to the possibility that what they read and hear in the MSM MAY NOT be true. I don’t force people at “gun point” to come to my point of view, but try to show them where they have been lied to. I have no greater purpose right now (outside of family and work) than to do this. What I find most baffling, is how any intelligent person can see the same evidence I see, and come up with diametrically opposed conclusions. As I said, the empirical evidence NEVER lies. Therefore, CAGW is the greatest lie in modern history and ANYONE that supports it is either complicit, stupid or both.

These things are beyond question, they are matters of law. They are not up for subjective debate.

I hope you’re not suggesting the law is beyond question. The law is meant to serve us, not the other way around.

your propensity to block-quote is reminiscent of someone who recently stopped posting here. Just saying.

Aside from the passive aggressiveness, if blockquotes are outlawed then only outlaws will have blockquotes.
Blockquotes, or point-by-point rebuttals, have been normal on the Internet since 1993. I postulate it will remain so. Advertising your knee jerk to it won’t help you. You don’t like blockquotes, I don’t like brussel sprouts, each is not the other’s problem.

And now, vis a vis recent unmentionable cases, the race begins.

As a 1st generation traditional user of blockquotes I (claim that I) have been offended by your insinuations about blockquotes and I demand you cease offending my delicate blockquoting sensibilities and infringing my blockquoter’s rights (which didn’t exist before today) and you should be put in jail for a year! I claimed offence first, so I win! hooray! The right to not be upset by anything ever prevails!

The law used to be the “thin blue line between order and chaos” which implied in most of life you had to accept the risks and excitement of chaos. This line is blurring wider and taking on an increasingly dusky western hue and may do so until the law is everywhere and interest is nowhere.

What I find most baffling, is how any intelligent person can see the same evidence I see, and come up with diametrically opposed conclusions.

I’ve pondered that point many times myself. I think the answer is that they simply aren’t looking at the same “evidence”.

I have a very intelligent and educated younger relative who is an ardent believer in all things CAGW. I sat down with him one evening and explained to him, as somebody with an extensive background in fossil-fuel power generation, why solar and wind power in their current forms could never supply baseload power, and why, therefore, they needed fossil-fuel back-up capacity which sort-of defeated the whole purpose.

He took it all in, and I left feeling I had actually accomplished something.

I ran into him about a week later. He was falling all over himself to tell me how “wrong” I was. He had frantically searched for the better part of the week and found ONE solar thermal plant (in Spain I think), that could generate and store electricity for use overnight.

This proved beyond doubt (to him) that everything I had said about baseload power was a load of crap, and should be treated with complete and utter disdain.

There was a time when I used to read all of the published papers from both sides. I don’t bother anymore, unless it is of some specific interest to me. The basics of “climate science” need no complex explanations.

The fact that clouds exist proves conclusively that net transfer of heat is from the oceans to the atmosphere, and not the other way round. The fact that shadows are not pitch black proves conclusively that the atmosphere is not transparent to incoming radiation from the sun as required by the CAGW “theory”. The fact that it is cooler under cloud cover than directly in the sun proves that clouds have a negative influence on incoming radiation. And so on.

For the true believer however, observable facts are irrelevant. As long as they can find some obscure, post-modern, peer-reviewed, published paper that “refutes” the evidence of their own lying senses, they can remain comfortable in their religious fervor.

Therefore, CAGW is the greatest lie in modern history and ANYONE that supports it is either complicit, stupid or both.

OSinsider. Your making an implicit ad hominem attack on anyone who believes differently from yourself. Still I’m glad for you, that you have the comfort of your version of the truth, even if it is based on what i consider a somewhat paranoid worldview. There are however other perspectives out there.

And as far as MV’s assertion that:

not transparent to incoming radiation from the sun as required by the CAGW “theory”

That’s just absolutist bunk and quite wrong. The atmosphere is to a degree, opaque to radiation, both incoming and outgoing. that’s why radiation has an affect on its temperature. You can talk about relative transparency at different wavelengths, but such a catch all statement is just crap.

What I find most baffling, is how any intelligent person can see the same evidence I see, and come up with diametrically opposed conclusions.

Maybe because they actually interpret the evidence from many different observations of a complex system, using different methods, extrapolate meaning from them, and face up to an actual problem when they see it??

If O2 and N2 are “opaque” (to whatever degree) to incoming solar radiation, then O2 and N2 are “warmed” by incoming solar radiation, and we don’t don’t need a “greenhouse theory” to explain our “warm” atmosphere.

If we don’t need a “greenhouse theory” to explain why the atmosphere is warm, then we certainly don’t need a CO2 CAGW “theory” to explain fluctuations in atmospheric temperature. ESPECIALLY when said fluctuations don’t match the linear increase of CO2.

Or, in simple terms:

It’s the sun, stupid.

That is why ALL “computer models” assume O2 and N2 to be largely transparent to incoming solar radiation – otherwise they would have no reason to exist.

“”Maybe because they actually interpret the evidence from many different observations of a complex system, using different methods, extrapolate meaning from them, and face up to an actual problem when they see it??”"

MV, i suspect if your going to write utter tosh like you 154, you really need to look at the BASIC theory behind the GH affect. Actually, don’t just look at the pretty pictures, try comprehending simple concepts. Like:

Radiation comes into the atmosphere interacts with it and warms it. Heats the Earth as well. Some infared radiation from that heated Earth gets absorbed by the atmosphere as its radiated out the other way, particularly at night. Increase CO2 in the troposphere and more of that radiated infa-red is absorbed in the troposphere so it heats up. Its no longer available to be absorbed by the stratosphere, so that cools down.

Jo. Thank you for the opportunity to post on this matter. I publicly absolve you from any responsibility should there be any repercussions for you. If I don’t stand up and make a fight to defend what I see as an increasing attempt to prevent freedom of speech in Australia, I would not be true to myself and the principles under which I have tried to live my life.

The Court was asked to decide on the eligibility of 11 candidates to stand for election on the Tasmania Regional Council in October 1996. Justice Merkel examined the evidence surrounding each candidate. Handing down his decision earlier this year, Justice Merkel found that 9 of the candidates did not have their Aboriginality disproved.

The court found that Aboriginality was disproved in the case of Debbie Oakford who had been elected to the council and Lance Lesage who had been unsuccessful.”

In the same case, Justic Merkel widened the definition under which people could claim Aboriginality.

Dr Cassandra Pybus , who was an expert witness in the case made the following comment on that aspect of his decision: “I think that has opened the way to, as I say, anybody can call themselves Aboriginal and get away with it which therefore necessarily undermines the claims of the people to whom we do owe a debt, to whom we do owe something.”

From the 4Corners program “Blackfella,Whitefella” (see my post @ 125 for link)

“QUENTIN McDERMOTT: The court case was judged on three federal guidelines — self identification as an Aboriginal person, community recognition and family descent.

All remain contentious.

Oakford lost her case and had to stand down from ATSIC.

But Justice Merkel’s decision that the case against the other nine couldn’t be proved angered Mansell.

MICHAEL MANSELL: There is something like 300,000-odd Aboriginal people in Australia.

If this decision is left to stand, then the population of Aborigines in Australia could climb to 2,000,000 within 12 months.”

In the 1996 case on which Justice Merkel sat, Debbie Oakford and Lance Lesage “were reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed” in Justice Merkel’s ruling.

An interesting question for all you legal eagles. As the Debbie Oakford/Lance Lesage situation then exactly fits the ruling of Justice Mordecai Bromberg in the case against Bolt, would she now have the right to sue former Justice Merkel and/or those who brought the case against her?

We search for that elusive 100% solid evidence in a sea of theatrical theories that pose as evidence just because they have added a mathematical equation or have observed the experiments that do not have to include all the parameters that was used.
Time lines are written off as the theories degenerate in a massive mess with the change of this planets parameters.
So, scientists totally ignore the past beyond which the theories start to fail.

Accuracy on science on this planet is a highly complex system of many interacting actions which are totally different and always changing.
As far as scientists are concerned, these are repetitious and always coming back with no changes.

We do have some solid numbers to investigate what this planet was like in the past and where it has been, but then that would destroy our current science laws on gravity and relativity with a faster rotating planet and vastly more water with heavier salt concentrations to protect the density of the water from flying off from centrifugal force(centrifuge).

Raiden I suggest you read Mining Law in Western Australia, 4th edition by Michael Hunt (unfortunate, I know) before attempting to debate me on mining royalties. Most of the relevant sections are available for free here:

Might be an interesting read. I don’t think it will be required for this discussion though.

You end up looking rather silly making qualitative statements about issues which are quite simply a matter of law, be it State, Commonwealth or Constitutional law.

Laws can be changed. Probably wouldn’t exactly be easy though. In the end, I’m not even saying that’s necessary. I was just providing alternate scenarios.

Is it within the rights of the Feds to impose a post extraction mining “duty of excise”? Absolutely. Do the minerals on State land belong to the corresponding State? Absolutely. These things are beyond question, they are matters of law. They are not up for subjective debate.

I never denied those things. Again, laws can always be changed. I’m not necessarily saying they should be, but that’s not my point. If there are flaws in something, then the issue can be debated.

Once minerals are legally extracted by the mining lease holder (in WA) the property transfers from the Crown (State) to the lease holder. Any any stage beyond this point the Commonwealth can levy any tax they wish on further production or sale. It is no longer property of the State Crown.

Okay.

To say the minerals (not saying you did) belong to all Australians is demonstratably false in law.

Law wise perhaps. Does that make it right? Well, that could be debatable too. Just because something is a law, doesn’t make it right.

They belong to the people of the respective States. However, the Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC) redistributes GST income between the States taking into account things such as royalties. State royalties are therefore indirectly redistributed amongst the remaining States. It may surprise you to know that Victoria gets more this way from WA mining royalties than we do. Does that sound sane to anyone?

No, it doesn’t sound sane. But, Victoria might need those royalties more than another state. That might not even be true. In the end, this all comes down to money management and if it’s happening effectively. In this area, it’s probably hard to get all the details. I certainly don’t work for any form of Government.

As for the appropriate royalty mechnism (ad valorem, specific rate, RRT, Brown tax – not that Brown), it is up to the States to decide (and Feds on their lands) for themselves. There are competing objectives in levying royalties, such as levying a fair amount (what is fair anyway?), not discouraging mining investment, complexity/cost of implementation, stability of the revenue stream etc These are not simple matters.

I agree, these areas alone are far from simple.

The latter is something the Feds completely ignore in their advocacy of the MRRT. The revenues shall be very uneven, but the expenditures tied to the legislation are not. You cannot pretend that every year will be a boom year for mining as Swan does. We in WA understand that all too well.

But on the other extreme, you can’t say that when it isn’t a ‘boom year’, there’s basically no mining or profits to me made. Hell, look at Gina Rineheart and all the wealth she has inherited alone.

As for Barnett being a failure, the polls would seem to disagree. Most people probably struggle to remember that Ripper is the Leader of the opposition these days.

Polls in general are quite flawed in my eyes. Besides, most people are too conditioned into thinking that either Labor or Liberal are the only ones worth voting for and that anyone else is a ‘wasted vote’.

Barnett is the one who took the strong position of removing the concession on iron ore fines royalties, by stating he would increase them to 6.5% and 7.5% in line with the royalties on lump iron ore.

Whoop-Dee-Doo! He’s still a failure in my eyes.

BTW your propensity to block-quote is reminiscent of someone who recently stopped posting here. Just saying.

This is actually my first time posting on Joanne’s site. I always tend to use that feature if it’s available.

Excessive profits are undefinable. There is no such term in economics.

Undefinable? I disagree. Besides, there’s more to this issue than some words in an economics dictionary (so to speak).

There is a term akin to what you are trying to say which is “economic rent” – hence the resource RENT tax.

Well, I’m not even certain if this “economic rent” thing is the right way to go. But okay.

Economic rent is the profit left over after business has achieved the required return to emply the factors (inputs) of production (labour, capital, entrepeneurship, energy).

Fair enough.

The laws simply approximate this rate of return with the risk-free level of return (long term bond rate) plus an arbitrary amount. I say arbitrary because I am sure the Federal Treasury simply plucked a number out of the air when designing the RSPT because it was waaaay too low to represent the required return of mining investments.

That seems like a pretty big leap to me. Maybe you’re right, but you could be flat out wrong for all I know. We’d have to look at the details from Treasury.

In addition, greenfields developments are more risky than brownfields, just like new resource types (like laterite nickel in recent years) are more risky than older tech developments (sulphide nickel ores).

I’m sure there are many risks in mining in general. I accept that.

The single rate in the MRRT/RSPT fails to make any distinctions between the differing risk rates involved in mining projects. It is simply one-size-fits-all.

Well, I’m not even claiming that the Governments policy is any good. I personally don’t know much of the details on it, but my argument is that the general idea of making mining pay more is a sound idea.

It has many other failing… all too many to catalogue here.

Well, considering bungles such as what happened with things like the live cattle ban, that could very well be true. I wouldn’t be suprised to be honest.

Belief in saving the planet is probably to strong a term. Belief in making the adaptation process my children are going to have to go through as painless as possible is probably more it.

Also, it will be a massive political milestone for Australia, and its a key plank of the legislative program of a government i support. Come early 2013 when the sky is still overhead, and the economy hasn’t crumbled because of it, i think most people will be wondering what all the fuss was about. Bit like when the GST came in.

Belief in making the adaptation process my children are going to have to go through as painless as possible is probably more it.

What adaption processes do your children have to go through???

it will be a massive political milestone for Australia

Political only comment!

and its a key plank of the legislative program of a government i support.

Political admission!

The question was really in relation to what you personally believe in when considering Australia and its environmental concerns? Is the CO2 PPM increase really making your children go through an ADAPTION process – mine haven’t had to do this yet – where do you live – I live in Australia?

There is only on species on this planet called a Human Being ,The Term human race is just that ( a term for the Human Species )The words Racist or Racism have no verifiable meanings relating to Human Beings .
Racism is just a term spun by Government and MSM .
If you feel you character or Heritage has been challenged by another Human Being , Debate it Reply to it , Refute it , Just dont litigate under the term Racism as it is Irrelevant.

Catamon @167
That the legacy you give your children will be one of a crippled economy, blackouts and power rationing, food scarcity, with spiraling inflation, rampant government debt and soaring costs of living, will probably prove a major surprise and a crushing disappointment to you then. No doubt the irony will be somewhat lost on you. Remember where you heard it first, but your future apologies will not be so readily accepted. And for that risk, what was the perceived benefit again? You lost me on that one.

catatonia |ˌkatəˈtōnēə|
noun Psychiatry
abnormality of movement and behavior arising from a disturbed mental state (typically schizophrenia). It may involve repetitive or purposeless overactivity, or catalepsy, resistance to passive movement, and negativism.
• informal a state of immobility and stupor.
ORIGIN late 19th cent.: from cata- [badly] + Greek tonos ‘tone or tension.’

Whatever. Just one more anecdote for karma as some kind of empirical phenomena.

Ok, Dave I’ll try to keep this simple. (Did that sound like HAL9000??)

From my previous its plain that i believe that temperatures are likely to increase over the next few decades at least.

I also believe that if Australia takes action it makes it more likely that the rest of the world will take action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and so Australia passing an ETS will help limit global temperature rises in the future.

Logically from that it follows that people, including my children, will have to adapt to a world where temperatures are generally higher. The less temperatures rise, or the slower they rise. the less they will have to do and spend to adapt their way of life to that world.

You ACTUALLY think the rest of the world is stupid enough to implement catastrophic economic changes NOW??

OK, you still haven’t answered my last question Cat, but I’ll try again on a larger scale. Please explain how a 5% (heck 50%) reduction in the 3% of the 0.0038% of the atmosphere that humans MAY be responsible for is going to DO anything!!!

I was round-about asked how I came to my beliefs on the CAGW scam. Quite simple, I am a highly educated person with a Nuclear Engineering background, I can read and I know how to investigate and troubleshoot. Admittedly, I came to this debate as a devout believer in the scam. It made an elegant kind of sense. Then I read a book that peaked my curiosity. It was “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton. I know this is a work of fiction and take as such. However, the bibliography at the back and simple, logical explanations in the book got me thinking. “What if what I’ve told isn’t so??” So I got busy investigating. It is easy, you know!!! Actual, empirical evidence NEVER lies, and with a modicum of personal integrity I was able to admit that I had been wrong in believing the SCAM and changed my stance. The righteous anger I now feel about being lied to in such an outrageous way keeps me focused in my mission to enlighten as many people as possible to the possibility that what they read and hear in the MSM MAY NOT be true. I don’t force people at “gun point” to come to my point of view, but try to show them where they have been lied to. I have no greater purpose right now (outside of family and work) than to do this. What I find most baffling, is how any intelligent person can see the same evidence I see, and come up with diametrically opposed conclusions. As I said, the empirical evidence NEVER lies. Therefore, CAGW is the greatest lie in modern history and ANYONE that supports it is either complicit, stupid or both.

Good on ya!

An intellectual and, dare I say, spiritual voyage that is now being repeated millions of times over in no small part thanks to the selfless dedication of bloggers like Jo Nova who have whiled away the best years of their lives inspiring others to open their minds and think for themselves. Historically, an extremely dangerous and unrewarding occupation and becoming more so by the day!

I, too, came to this debate convinced by the AGW hypothesis, although it was long before the labels and recriminations of this century’s debate. I wasn’t as well armed as you, with your engineering degree. I hail from the most liberal of the liberal arts, but at least back in the day our professors thought it only proper to teach us HOW to think before pointing us towards what to think about. And I am grateful to come from a family of engineers and researchers whose empiricist values and extreme curiosity was inoculated into my very being at an early age. My dad read to us Darwin’s Voyage of the Beagle and E. O. Wilson’s books about ant societies as bed time stories when we were kids. I understood the scope of geological time before I was age 10. Then my Catholic mother dragged us to Church every Sunday dressed to the nines. So from an early age I was caught between the two authorities of science and religion and have struggled to define and reconcile the realms of each every since.

From this life experience I feel qualified to identify CAGW as a post-mod variety of zealotry, a faith which has falsely appropriated scientific authority as a rational and secular cloak for mysteries far more obscure and sinister indeed.

Cat @ 174
You and Richard Glover are welcome to try, even though I despise tattoos in general, that one I would wear with pride. What country in its right mind enacts a tax that will be relentlessly inflationary, promote job losses across the board (especially in industry and manufacturing), encourage a locked in obligation to send a large chunk of change overseas in a thoroughly unregulated fashion, reduce the value of people’s assets and property, and aid in increasing the number of welfare dependents? Even that might be an acceptable risk to take if there was an actual well thought out, alternative plan for changing the mix of energy production in society, particularly should wind and solar prove to be unviable (which they are). Yet no such detail or discussion has occured, no practical alternatives have been considered, just put everyone’s livelihood and lifestyle at risk for an if, a but and a maybe.

Some would call it treasonous white-anting of the economy by rank amateurs who haven’t clue one of what they are actually doing. Or perhaps it is treasonous deliberate sabotage of our economic interests in the service of a higher agenda? I can’t quite make up my mind which one applies, but it certainly is going to compromise any hopes your children had to enjoy the freedoms you have so egregiously taken for granted. You actually don’t deserve those freedoms because you place such little value on them, but I can’t say I am happy to see you unborn (?) children deprived in this way as the result of the stupidity and hubris of their parent.

Abusive??? I am still waiting for you to answer my last 2 questions. I am assuming you aren’t answering them because either you can’t because you don’t know how or you won’t because you really do know the true answers.

Catamon – When the Howard Government told us BEFORE the election that they would introduce a GST, they still got elected and they stuck to their promise and we now have a GST. When the Gillard Government told us BEFORE the election that they would NOT introduce a Carbon Tax, they got elected. What’s the difference? This is the fundamental issue. We have been lied to by the people we elected to govern us and our country. If they had told the truth do you really think they would be in power. The Carbon Tax is a blind and you are gullible enough to think that if we reduce our emissions the rest of the world will follow. The Government is broke, incurring debt daily, and the current tax intake has a major shortfall. The only solutions are to reduce spending; that’s a joke, a Labor Government that cuts spending or increase current taxes; that just won’t bring the money in fast enough or introduce a new tax; great idea, we can set the amount and they’ll have to pay it. It’s all about money not the environment.

I apologize if I have come across as “abusive”, but if you actually read what I wrote at 140 then you would have read

The righteous anger I now feel about being lied to in such an outrageous way keeps me focused in my mission to enlighten as many people as possible to the possibility that what they read and hear in the MSM MAY NOT be true.

and I feel this towards people who are recklessly obtuse and purposely ignorant and it comes across in some of my writing.

they will have to do and spend to adapt their way of life to that world

Bit slow here! But just got it – nothing is going to happen in your lifetime Catamon – you refer to THAT WORLD – so when you pass away – all the CAGW warnings will occur! But how do I help my children adapt to THAT WORLD – you have a responsibity to spread the secret on this subject so we can all rest in peace!

Or do I simply pay my CO2 Tax now & you can guarantee my families future? Can you guarantee this Catamon?

At post 143 I pointed out the observable fact that shadows prove that solar radiation is absorbed and diffused by the atmosphere.

I further pointed out that this was contrary to all the current computer modelling “proving” CO2 CAGW, which, by definition, requires the atmosphere to be pretty much transparent to solar radiation and treats it as such – contrary to above observable fact.

More to the point, I finished by stating that to people like you “observable fact” was inconsequential, as long as you could go and find some obscure bit of post-modern “climate science” to support your religious dogma.

So what did you do?

Well, you provided a link to an obscure bit of “post-modern” science, which is, in fact, pretty-much irrelevant to the statements I made, excepting that it happens to mention in passing that stratospheric ozone absorbs some UV light.

Here are the figures, Cat.

N2 and O2 account for 99.036% of the atmosphere. Ozone accounts for 0.000007% ofthe atmosphere.

In effect, to “refute” my statement about how computer models treat 99.036% of the atmosphere as transparent to solar radiation (which they do), you went and quoted an obscure blog article about how 0.000007% of the atmosphere absorbs SOME UV light.

I can only conclude by repeating what I concluded the previous post with:

For the true believer however, observable facts are irrelevant. As long as they can find some obscure, post-modern, peer-reviewed, published paper that “refutes” the evidence of their own lying senses, they can remain comfortable in their religious fervor.

When the Gillard Government told us BEFORE the election that they would NOT introduce a Carbon Tax, they got elected.

Its and ETS with a period of fixed price permits at the start, not a tax.

But good to see you aren’t one of the Trogs that insists the current Govt wasn’t elected.

I’m actually of the opinion that if the ALP had won in its own right we would have had a gabfest like they promised and then and ETS of some sort but it would have taken longer. Having a minority govt needing the support of the Greens and Indies means that didn’t happen. Such is life and politics, and frankly i think that led to a better outcome.

The Government is broke

Nahh.

and the current tax intake has a major shortfall.

Thank you hammock dwelling Costello for that structural deficit, but hopefully the MRRT will at least help sort that out.

Sorry MV, where your going pretty obviously leads into the whole trace gasses not having an effect, and i’m not going down that particular rabbit hole. Yuck! Might find Alan Jones down there with you and thats to creepy to contemplate.

people who are recklessly obtuse and purposely ignorant

And that is somehow less abusive than

either complicit, stupid or both

Whatever Osi, at least your consistently obnoxious. If that can be construed as a virtue????

Maybe because they actually interpret the evidence from many different observations of a complex system, using different methods, extrapolate meaning from them, and face up to an actual problem when they see it??

Lets parse this out with some editing:

Maybe because they actually interpret the evidence(models and) from many different(incomplete) observations of a complex system, using different methods (fudge factors and ignoring data to the contrary), extrapolate meaning from them (guess), and face up to an actual problem when they see it (modify human behavior that in their faith needs to be reformed anyway) ??

yeah I know. still waiting for an answer to a similar question from JB on a couple of threads previously. Not expecting much. For people like Cat, JB, Mattb and others this is ideological not logical. they are purposely ignorant of facts and evidence and refuse to acknowledge it. No personal integrity!!

In Jo’s post “Black day for free speech in Australia” she provides a link to a section of the Racial Discrimination Act.

On reading it, I was struck by the similarity in vagueness so open to many possible interpretations at the whim of any particular Judge, to the document put out by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change so well analysed by Dr.Vincent Gray in his “Triumph of Doublespeak” article in Envirotruth No.212 to be found at:

The Framework Convention on Climate Change which was signed by so many nations, including our own, started the whole thing off with this definition of “Climate Change”, from Article 1 as follows :
“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”

They have suddenly changed the meaning of “climate change” which had previously not involved any particular cause, to one restricted only to its being ”attributed” to direct or indirect human changes in atmospheric composition. This means that they do not have to prove that all changes in climate have this cause. All they need to do is to get people to use the term “climate change”, and they will suddenly discover that by saying these words they support the IPCC “attribution” whether they know it or not.

There does not need to be any actual evidence. All that is needed is for somebody. such as an IPCC climate scientist, an environmental activist, a politician, or a journalist, to “attribute” it. The “attribution” does not even need to be “direct”. “Indirect” can be as obscure as they chose it to be.

This device has been an outstanding success. Any “climate change” which is disapproved of, be it a heat wave, cold spell, flood, drought, or hurricane, is today routinely “attributed” to human influence on the atmosphere.” end quote.

Al Gore and his ilk have turned it into an art form, from his “Inconvenient Truth” effort and further evidenced in his latest ludicrous 24 hour “Gore-a-thon” which has even made some of his Greenest sycophants cringe in embarrassment!

However, you will notice there is a lull in the responses. They are all furiously texting each other on how to best attack what has been posted over the last hour. Pretty soon they will be back with a plan of attack. Unfortunately I REALLY do have to go to bed (still getting over a stroke), and it appears you are largely going to be on your own.

There you go again Osi. And you expect me to happily engage with you on your terms and timing? Demanding little petal aren’t you?

Ahh whell, just to stop you whinging.

I don’t subscribe to the cringing and self abusing cowardice of those of my fellow countryfolk who think Australia doesn’t matter, and that nothing we do can matter in a global context. Top them i say, get and ego, and have a go. The results may surprise, and if they dont, its still right to try. Put in a price on Carbon, and we may well get results from research, experimentation, and industrial spin offs that have significance far beyond our shores.

Now, you may not like my answer, but i I’m sure by now you have worked out how much i value your opinion of me.

Well there’s a scientific refutation of a scientific argument, if ever I saw one.

And i take the point you are making MV. To be serious for a moment. Dont worry it wont last long.

Remember that whether you respect me for it or not, I am one of those, who after looking at the evidence and arguments, has decided that AGW is real, Ocean acidification (ok, loss of alkalinity) is real, both are likely to be a real problem, and that we should try to avert the worst consequences of those problems. For me, the science is settled enough to well justify action.

That doesn’t mean i don’t like to discuss, but that’s essentially where i come from.

For now, in Australia in particular, the arena where this is being decided is political / moral and i have a particular interest in that. That informs the way that i relate to the issue at the moment. I’m certainly not going to have the same discussions with multiple different people who disagree with me over and over and over no matter how obnoxious and rude they get, or how insistent they are i engage in the particular way they demand at the time.

The macroscopic casual observation would show that since we are not freezing down here on the surface there cannot be much absorption of radiation by the most populous molecule (N2) in the atmosphere above us.

Have I misinterpreted your hypothesis?
Have I misinterpreted any of these graphs?
Does this disprove the MemoryVault nitrogen greenhouse hypothesis?
I think it does.

Andrew, from where I am sitting at the kitchen table, I can see the back verandah. It is in shade.

Despite this, I can see it all. It is not an area of blackness.
Moreover, it has all the colours that it would have, even if it were in full sun.

Ergo, the full spectrum of visible light is being diffused by the atmosphere to “illuminate” my back verandah.

If photons of visible light are being diffused, it is because they are colliding with “something” in the atmosphere. That “something” is not simply ozone, or CO2, since there just is not enough of them to explain the effect. Neither is it being caused by water vapour, since the observed effect remains the same regardless of humidity. That leaves O2 and N2.

If photons of visible light are colliding with molecules of O2 and/or N2, then they are imparting some level of energy to the molecules of O2 and/or N2, otherwise they would not change course (get diffused). That imparted energy will ultimately be expressed as heat.

Now, I have no idea if this heating effect from diffused light accounts for all, most, some, or only a fraction of the heat in the atmosphere.

What I DO know is that ALL of the GCM’s, especially those most heavily relied-upon by the IPCC treat O2 and N2 as pretty-much transparent to incoming light. Which, as I’ve just pointed out, contradicts observable fact, and is therefore wrong.

And since to the best of my knowledge (and I’ll happily stand corrected) there has been no real work done in this area (why should there be – it works against the CAGW “theory”), then MY assumption that solar fluctuation is enough to explain most variations in global atmospheric temperature is as good as anybody else’s assertion that it is caused by trace amounts of plant food.

You didn’t say sun fluctuation was enough to explain recent warming, so that’s not what I was objecting to. I wouldn’t object to that because I believe it for other reasons.

What I was objecting to was the line of evidence and reasoning (ie mechanism) that you posited for the steady state temperature of the atmosphere ie- a radiative greenhouse by alternate means. I’m just saying I don’t think you can reach that conclusion via that particular argument.

If photons of visible light are being diffused, it is because they are colliding with “something” in the atmosphere. That “something” is not simply ozone, or CO2, since there just is not enough of them to explain the effect. Neither is it being caused by water vapour, since the observed effect remains the same regardless of humidity. That leaves O2 and N2.

I agree.

Moreover, it has all the colours that it would have, even if it were in full sun.
Ergo, the full spectrum of visible light is being diffused by the atmosphere to “illuminate” my back verandah.

Oh really? Last I checked, at midday the sky was blue, not yellow-white.

If photons of visible light are colliding with molecules of O2 and/or N2, then they are imparting some level of energy to the molecules of O2 and/or N2, otherwise they would not change course (get diffused).

Correct!

That imparted energy will ultimately be expressed as heat.

Ennk! Energy Conservation Law violation detected. You’re double dipping your diffusion biscuit in the energy guacamole.
The energy is absorbed by the molecule and then immediately re-emitted minus the wavelengths that are absorbed. Only the energy in the wavelengths that were absorbed can remain as internal thermal kinetic energy or to be re-emitted at longer wavelengths as radiant heat. The fact that so much (but not quite 100%) of the sunlight is diffused outwards in the same spectral band as the incoming light is actually the proof that very little absorption by N2 is occurring. Also, a shaded verandah can’t compete with spectrometers.

Now, I have no idea if this heating effect from diffused light accounts for all, most, some, or only a fraction of the heat in the atmosphere.

By the previous spectral diagram it can only be a tiny fraction, and looks to be less than 1% of the insolation, just judging by eye. That chart does not look very precise but I haven’t found any better sources of sunlight spectrum information.

Can we put the Verandah Spectrometer to rest and use electronic spectrometers instead?

Sorry, but if the molecule (of “atmosphere”) deflects (diffuses) the light, then the molecule (of “atmosphere”) absorbs energy. QED. I think we are both agreed up to that point.

But then you go on to claim that the energy thus absorbed quote “is immediately re-emitted”.

.

See, the trouble I have here is that, as actually observed in the atmosphere, an energised (heated) gaseous molecule does not “immediately re-emit its energy”. What it does is rise in comparison to the other surrounding non-energised molecules.

So, a certain percentage of the sun’s energy is absorbed by the atmosphere on the way down, and is transmitted back to space WITHOUT ever factoring in to the current “computer climate models”, which treat ” the atmosphere” as transparent.

There was, I remember, a good reason it was set at that rate. I can’t remember what it was, and as always, the period where the actual policy was debated was over in the blink of an eye, and then we got onto the fun bit of the “political debate”, and billionaires on the backs of utes.

I am sure you are sincere in the response I quoted, but it says volumes for he ecomonic ignorance of most people (I am not picking on you as I have found this to be the case in all areas of life).

The reason is immaterial. The rate is subjective. Which means today they snicker about making it high so most people will not squeak about it. But once the principal has been established, there is nothing stopping them from setting the rate to anything they want, up to and including all wages earned by every individual (it costs you nothing to earn them except your time, which is not a quantifiable cost). This is what in essence happened in the old Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and most totalitarian societies. Some may look on them with envy, but all are relegated to the dustbins of history as abject failures, or are currently limping along in abject poverty. Neither of which is an optomistic outcome.

We have examples of just such taxes in the States. And how they malevolently became onerous. You may have heard of the “Alternative Minimum Tax”. It was passed in the late 60s and was aimed at 143 tax payers who paid nothing in taxes for the previous year. However, it sat and became a tax on literally millions of middle class taxpayers that the government has refused to eliminate. There was a good reason for it at the time (supposedly), but it has been changed over the years (through inaction) to be a burden on all tax payers.

Be careful of politicians “excusing” excesses. It will come back to bite you.

A friend once remarked that sometimes hackers do good (they hacked a company he did not like). I corrected him to say that they never do good, they just hurt people you do not like sometimes. So it is with government.

Yes diffusion happens, your shaded verandah is indeed evidence of that. That’s not in dispute.
But you have stooped to the level of selective half-quotes and obtuseness.
As I said, what’s re-emitted is minus the wavelengths that are absorbed. I’ve used the word “absorbed” for two different stages of the process because it is true in both, but perhaps the term “retained” is less ambiguous for the energy that remains in the gas after the second stage. More bluntly, until the initial absorption is re-emitted, no deflection has occurred yet. Regardless of labelling, I insist upon net conservation of energy. Any energy available to light up the shaded part of the verandah is not available for warming the gas. That’s why your observation detracts from your conclusion rather than supporting it.

Photons don’t have mass so while total energy is conserved there is no need for conservation of momentum in the billiard ball sense. That’s why high deflection does not imply high energy absorption of electromagnetic radiation. An N2 transparency of less than 100% is necessary for absorption, but not sufficient.

The practical disproof of your argument is a mirror. A mirror is not transparent to light, it is totally opaque, intercepts all incoming light, deflects that light completely, and it does not retain any energy in the process. It doesn’t heat up at all. In practice a mirror is not perfectly reflective because aluminium has an absorption spectrum of its own. Neglecting this unavoidable imperfection, the theory still holds. That’s why they put an aluminised inner glass liner in Thermos flasks and gold reflective sheets around spacecraft components. It’s because reflectors by definition can’t be absorbing what they’re deflecting.

Therefore generally speaking, the presence of opaque diffusive ability does not prove it also absorbs energy.
As I said earlier, it is only this particular line of argument that was in dispute. I’m just trying to eliminate invalid reasoning. The final result that the atmosphere absorbs light thermally somehow is not in doubt. The atmosphere absorbs and retains some energy from direct sunlight, but the magnitude of your reputed N2 warming effect is important, not just its existence.

It would be permissible to draw a line of significance and say that any effect that falls under that threshold is one we won’t bother to model. If the magnitude is very small (as I believe all the above evidence says), then saying N2 is an appreciable greenhouse gas seems to me like saying that we can stop global warming by having everyone paint their roofs white. The effect it will have is real but the numbers don’t add up to a significant size.

Try finding a complete absorption spectrum measurement of N2. I couldn’t. Few people seem to bother measuring any part of it over 120nm. (I am hoping there is no global conspiracy to conceal this.) So I presume there is almost no absorption at these longer wavelengths, especially when the only example I could find was a billion times weaker than water. Your eyes are enough to tell you diffusion by N2 occurs but not enough to tell you the strength of the warming effect. Only spectrometers can do that.

Since your retina is not sensitive to the only part of the spectrum where N2 has any appreciable absorption, who are you going to believe, the spectrometer or your lying eyes?

For bonus marks, tell me how your argument of significant N2 absorption would prove the existence of man-made global warming. Because it does.